Beware the "Harsh Tone of Voice"

I found this funny; although the news story goes on to criticize the US. The story is about Manfred Nowak, who is the UN’s torture watchdog. Apparently he “interrogates” guards at the prisons he investigates. My question to him is where do you draw the line on “a harsh tone of voice?” Couldn’t that be considered a form of torture?

The whole story is here:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,408472,00.html

Today, he says, it's not so much in "strong states" (as he calls them) but mainly in feebler political entities that policemen and military officers abuse their defenseless victims. Torture is an efficient way for extracting a quick confession. For years now, the Nepalese royal family has engaged in a ferocious war with the country's Maoist rebels. The torture being practiced there is just as ferocious as the fighting. One popular method of torture in the Himalayan country is the so-called "falanga," which involves dealing carefully aimed blows to the soles of the victim's feet. It is an extremely painful method that hardly leaves behind any visible traces. But Nowak isn't easily deceived by the people in uniform he interrogates as part of his work. If he has to, he can use a harsh tone of voice. In Kathmandu, Nowak probed one prison guard until he finally elicited a reluctant admission: "A little bit of torture helps."

As I said earlier, the story goes on to criticize the US, specifically for Guantánamo Bay. Of course he doesn’t weigh into his equation the actions that brought the terrorist scum to Guantánamo. He’s only worried about us holding them without trial. I’m really curious as to what he would suggest we do with the vermin. Are we just supposed to set them free to behead more innocent people just because it’s not nice to keep them locked up? Give me a break.

Brandon