That only requires intense interviews and possibly certain deprivation.
There's a thin line between deprivation and torture.
Torture should only be used to subvert actions that are posed against civilian targets. Even then torture should be used within certain recognised standards. I mentioned before your idea of torture might be another's idea of an interview.
LOL. There's a clear difference between an "interview" and "torture", xris. I'm not confused about that. The only people who would say the two are remotely alike are those trying to justify torture.
And how would you know who has the information needed to prevent attacks on civilian targets? Who do you torture to get it? How far will you go, torturing someone for this information, when he may not even have it? And won't he just tell you anything to make the torture stop? The downsides far outweigh any benefits.
We need to clarify what is and what is not. I know that certain terrorists have been tortured and would never even admit they have been tortured, because of the trickery they faced and the results it gave.
I think that knowingly inflicting physical or mental pain onto a prisoner of war, beyond what is necessary as a part of his stay in a less-than-comfortable POW camp, is torture, whether or not you are trying to elicit some information from him.