That is cruelty or unnecessary coercion? What about beheading, is that prisoner abuse? What about slashing the throats of prisoners, cutting off arms and limbs, raping women prisoners and young girls - is that abuse? What about taking a tanker truck filled with fuel and explosives, then driving it in to a crowded marketplace and blow-up and maim 20 or more innocent women, children, policemen just doing their jobs, and poll workers - if we knew that so many deaths could be avoided by getting information from a terrorist using methods described in the Newsweek article, Is that unnecesary coercion?  I am sure that all of the victims of suicide bombers and terrorist beheadings(ask Nick Berg or Danial Pearle - if you could but of course they were beheaded) would gladly have traded places with the poor detainees at Guantanamo Bay that had to listen to loud music(try listening to my daughter's music blasting from her room sometime), sit under strobe lights(kids are attracted by strobe lights and dance to them), be chained hand and foot in fetal positions(some folks actually l-o-v-e that), in barren cells(that's where monks live by choice) with no chair(Buddhists call it emptiness and seek it), food or water(Yogi's give these up by choice). At least they are alive, they haven't gone through the agonizing terrible pain and terror of having their throats cut, and they still have their arms and limbs. In the light of these perspectives, consider a few snipets of what  Heather MacDonald has to say about this issue in her article  "How to Interrogate Terrorists":

(...)   The need for rethinking interrogation doctrine in the war on terror will not go away, however. The Islamist enemy is unlike any the military has encountered in the past. If current wisdom on the rules of war prohibits making any distinction between a terrorist and a lawful combatant, then that orthodoxy needs to change.

(...)   The need for rethinking interrogation doctrine in the war on terror will not go away, however. The Islamist enemy is unlike any the military has encountered in the past. If current wisdom on the rules of war prohibits making any distinction between a terrorist and a lawful combatant, then that orthodoxy needs to change.

(...)   Even if a prisoner had not previously studied American detention policies before arriving at Kandahar, he soon figured them out. "It became very clear very early on to the detainees that the Americans were just going to have them sit there," recalls interrogator Joe Martin (a pseudonym). "They realized: 'The Americans will give us our Holy Book, they'll draw lines on the floor showing us where to pray, we'll get three meals a day with fresh fruit, do Jazzercise with the guards, . . . we can wait them out.' "  Read more of her article..

In my previous post I asked, aside from the political issues, what really matters to the terrorists if love of life and family have no meaning for them? From Dr. Jack Wheeler's article that I wrote of in the same post  "How to Get a Terrorist to Sing Like a Canary Without Torture" we have an interesting practical approach for consideration:

(...)  The only practical argument against torturing terrorists is that it's so undependable: the guy will say anything to stop the torture. Often, a dramatic presentation of the threat of torture works better. Take the Israeli way:

(...)  When a Palestinian terrorist is captured, how many Israeli lives can be saved depends on how quickly and efficiently Shin Bet (Israeli Security) agents can make him squeal. They strip him naked and sit him in a chair with his legs forced apart. They bring in a large Doberman pincher whose muzzle is placed inches from his genitals. They explain: "This is Herman. Herman is a very unusual dog. Herman can smell when someone is lying. When someone lies, it gets Herman very mad. And when Herman gets mad, he bites - really hard. So we suggest you tell us the truth."

(...)  Works like a charm.

As I also said in the previous post, with what we are facing in this War on Terror, with an enemy that has no normal human capacity for emotion, for love of life, for love of family, and not even an ability for human rational thought, the only thing left to use against such animals is the threat of the most basic animalistic concern - one's genitals. Again I say if it works, use it. But I bet the terrorists would pick the strobe lights over Herman.

The Newsweek article is here..