Torture? Post-discussion Thoughts

Before class, I expected to have a hard time discussing this topic because I guess I self-identify as a do-gooder. I don't want people to be tortured, ever. But I also know that line of reasoning is well, unreasonable, and that people will continue to torture regardless of what's ideal. So I decided to form some conclusions, and this is what I have so far.
My first comment would be that I think a discussion regarding full-blown torture and "torture lite" would be, at best, interesting and informative. In reality, the conversation would be extremely confusing, but I do raise some objections to the almost dismissive style Bowden uses when referring o what he calls "coercion," especially in light of Sheri sharing the thesis of Torture and Democracy with us. Reading Christopher Hitchens's "Trust Me, It's Torture" and learning about "The Farm" has caused me true horror regarding the idea of "clean techniques" and the emotional impact that what seem like the most basic interrogation techniques can inspire.
All of those bleedingheart objections aside, though, I do understand the objections raised to the slippery slope theory. It reminds me of the joke about a man who asked a well-bred lady if she would have sex with a stranger for one million dollars. When she says yes, he asks if she would do the same for one dollar. She is appalled, and says "never! what do you think I am?" to which he responds, "I already know what you are, now we're just arguing over price." The idea seems preposterous, but I believe slippery slope is compelling, especially when you're comparing options that are very similar to one another, ie) ruthlessly questioning a detainee in a carefully choreographed way and/or doing to same to a detainee who has been sleep deprived. This causes me to believe that a bar must be set, but as Shannon commented, how can one tell where that bar is?
Regardless of my inability to say where the bar should be and how interrogators should interpret it, I agree with Bowden's conclusion that a ban on torture similar to the Israeli ban should be put in place. I also agree that the interrogator should ultimately answer for any violation of that ban. Bowden's other remarks, those regarding the relationship between fear and the public, worry me. Especially if an interrogator was to be tried by a jury, I fear that in times of widespread national unrest rulings may become inconsistent, at best. I could not sat whether I believe trial by a global tribunal would be better, but I very strongly believe that American citizens determining cases involving other citizens’ treatment of “enemy combatants” provides a serious conflict of interest.