Is It Justifiable to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Distress?

I agree with the author of "The Truth about Torture," Charles Krauthammer, and I also believe that he had a better written article about this topic.  I agree with his point about the three types of military prisoners.  The first group is the average soldier captured from battle.  They are serving their country, just like our soldiers are serving ours, so they are entitled to full, ethical treatment without the use of torture; after all, they aren't planning to blow anything up or crash into any buildings.  The second group is the captured terrorist.  They aren't entitled to the equal rights.  They make a living off of killing and harming people; it's their profession, as sick as that sounds.  I believe that in that case, with the captured terrorists, that it is okay to use torture to get information from them.  Are we going to let the terrorist have the full benefits of being a captured prisoner? Absolutely not.  If they are given the chance to have website, like in 1993, how do we know what they are posting on the web? Are they sending information to other terrorists or what? They shouldn't be able to do that.  Instead, we should treat them in the same way they treat others.  We should be able to use methods of torture to gain information from them and keep our country safe.  The third group is the terrorist with information.  They are the ones that we can most definitely use our methods on.  If they have information, we need it to keep our country safe and to find where other terrorists are.  I completely agree with Charles and his article.  We do need to go to extreme measures with terrorists to gain information.  It can't be like the 1993 World Trade Center attack where they were brought to justice and were able to access the internet and have warm cells.  It just can't be like that if we expect to keep our country safe.