Do you distinguish between coercion to elicit information and intelligence and coercion to elicit confession of a crime? It would seem that information and intelligence could be double checked for accuracy. Either the guy told you the true location of the secret submarine base, or he didn't. If he'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear, and what you want to hear is clearly accurate information, do you believe that can be coerced successfully?
Second, is any form of coercion to be considered torture? Sleep deprivation and humiliation cause no actual pain, but are surely coercive techniques. So is "good cop/bad cop, but it wouldn't work without a credible "bad cop".
No. Traditionally, the infliction of physical pain has been the defining feature of torture (though, it's not difficult to conceive of non-physical varieties).
There's a fundamental conservative idea that's being trampled in these torture discussions. Are we really supposed to grant the State permission to torture its enemies? The omnipotence of government is a liberal dream (well, it was). If suspects can be tortured: How much more flippin' powerful can a government be? Of course, that power would never be abused (When has the government ever abused its powers?) And the C.I.A.--that bastion of ineptitude--would be running the show...Good Lord!
I remember hand-wringing about Saddam being a torturer; people spoke of that as though it constituted the nadir of human conduct (correctly, I believe). Asymetric "standards" are not standards.