<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Depends on definitions of torture. For example the Taliban and the Al Qaeda , which includes the prisoners, chopped the arms of ordinary people or promoted it, for some biased logic, not torture but discipline of it's underlings.
<BR>
<BR>In making the psychological imprisonment, it is stopping those prisoners who would harm another and send a code in eye contact, and smell those next to them. This would and could lead to the rioting that lets not forget killed a soldier. The activities of both regimes have proved that defection is barbed with poison as the reward from Bin Laden to the families surviving means any threat to the prison guards is worth this seen punishment. Is it therefore punishment to stop these terrorists that come from genoicide factions that have the mental capability to blow up themselves and the Red Cross medical teams. The Geneva Convention was dealing with a war that could be understood. Terrorism is the thoughts of one person to another and vigilante action to kill, maim, mutilate and destroy the maximum number with no reguard for the team or unit. It is every terrorist for himself. So 'illegal, unlawful combatants' fits and new laws have to be made for these 'cannibals' since the 11th of September: Else we have another Lockerbie nearer the Capital, now that is the threat and why the prisoners are being questioned. The war on terror is not over, is it?</FONT></HTML>