Torture: it's a word that conjures images of thumb-screws, lit matches under fingernails--before the nails are ripped out--and the agonizing screams of the damned on Earth. In the Middle Ages it was not simply common, but used as a form of combination punishment-entertainment. And now? Is there a place for it now, in so-called 'Modern times'?

It's easy to say 'no.' We're not savages anymore; we're not living in squalor in the Middle Ages and killing people for speaking out against the Church, or the King. (Or are we?)

We don't want to 'stoop to the level' of our enemies, losing our humanity, the moral advantage, in the process. (Or do we already?)

Should we use torture? Have we used it? Are we already using it? Have others used it against us?

What do you think?

I'd bet most people think yes, yes, and yes.

And they'd probably be correct.

We know that our prisoners have been tortured in nearly every war we've been in since our nation was founded. I've read some stories from Vietnam that might keep some people up at night, so horrific were they. And with the degradations at Abu Ghraib, and what most of us suspect is done behind closed doors over-seas, I think it's reasonably safe to assume that, on occasion, we inflict pain on our enemies to get information, or gain an advantage.

But is it necessary?

If a 'dirty bomb' was going to go off in Manhatten and kill a million people, would it be allowable to torture a prisoner so we might locate it, and prevent it?

If your young daughter was going to be raped and murdered, unless a man was tortured to let the police know where to find her, would that be acceptable?

I think we all know what the answer is, only no one wants to say it.

As a father, I'd be willing to turn my head so whatever had to be done was done so my daughter's life would be saved. No hesitation. No question.

As an American, I'd be willing to forgive one incident of torture so that Manhatten might be saved. I'm certain many Manhattenites would agree.

Hell, wouldn't you? Wouldn't anyone?

Personally--and this might sound awful--but I'd almost rather have this done illegally, and on the sly, than have it condoned by some law we've concocted to allow it (as was recently proposed). As long as it's illegal it would be done with discretion, and only in times of extreme emergency for fear of exposure or punishment by those who did it. As long as it was illegal, it would be hushed-up, so the fragile National Psyche of our country would be protected, which is something we, as Americans, seemingly need.

God, it sound so horrible, even just typing it here in my study, but think about it. If your life was the one on the chopping block, and it would take someone (a very bad and evil person, by the way) to be tortured to save you--well, wouldn't you naturally wish that the ban on torture could be ignored just this once to save you?

Do you think Daniel Pearl's widow thinks so? Do you think the families of those who died in 9/11 think so?

Ask yourself what you really would wish for. If you can honestly say you'd rather die than have someone tortured to save you, or that you'd sacrifice your family to preserve the humanity of being a non-torturer, then I guess you're a better person than I am.

Because I know, deep inside, what I would wish would happen.

Only just don't tell me about it afterwards. Unfortunately--and like most Americans--my fragile psyche would not be able to handle it.

Secret agents and spy thrillers: great literature, but boring in real life?

Alas, but true. I can state without fear of contradiction that there has, in reality, never been a secret agent like James Bond. First of all, he uses his real name nearly wherever he goes ("Bond--James Bond"), and when he does occasionally use an alias, it's rather unconvincing. He gets involved with all sorts of women--every book, every time!--and then proceeds to dispatch a "super-villain" with aplomb, ending up in the arms of a dubiously-named woman like "Pussy Galore" who, I should mention in support of my argument, was a confirmed lesbian before sampling Bond's charms.

That's how good a spy Bond was: he can even charm the pants off lesbians!

But not realistic. In reality, spies mainly do but a few things: watch, wait, arrange and have meetings, and take photographs. Occasionally an assassin might kill someone in quiet, but that's about as wild as it gets. It was pretty rare in my research that I ever ran across spies engaging in bloody confrontations, shoot-outs, or car-chases. Most of what they did was gather and assimilate information and pass it on to their superiors or handlers, always remaining as much in the silent, blending-in background as possible.

Boy, what a great book that would make! Can you imagine it?

"Today I did a dead-drop. I woke up and sat around the apartment for seven hours until the time of the drop. I took the package as instructed to the site, ensured no one was observing me, and then I left it as instructed. I spent the rest of the afternoon in the apartment doing paperwork and research. That night I made a small, unsatisfying supper of Spaghetti-O's after making a secure phone-call to my supervisor. Then I went to sleep. It was a full day."

Or this:

"I am a spy. My handler gave me dead-drop instructions. After working a normal day in the Defense Department I went to the drop-site and picked up the package. I went home again after insuring I was not followed. The next day, I carefully used the camera I had been given to take some pictures of classified documents. I then hid the pictures in the false ceiling of my bedroom closet until I could dead-drop them back to my handler. I then went to sleep. It was a full day."

Man, imagine 300+ pages of this kind of stuff!

Not to say that, occasionally, one might not be involved in a kidnapping (occurred in post-war Berlin and Vienna), or a covert assasination (the famous Markov case in London), or a Central American coup (see Guatemala, 1953), or the digging of a secret spy tunnel (Berlin, 1954-55), so there is some grist for the spy thriller mill if one looks hard enough for it.

It's just a matter of how real but dry you want to make your spy-book-martini. Bond is fun and cartooney and that's great--that's how we all like Bond (the Bond of the books is my favorite one, though: harder-edged, more realistic, fewer quips). And Ian Fleming knew something about the spy biz--he was in MI6 for a time--so some of what he writes has a basic foundation in truth. Le Carre also worked for the British Secret Services, and his works come even closer to what really goes on in the espionage world. But to have a spy series based solely on the real-life work of a spy would be like drinking a cup of sand: all grit, but parching and hard to finish.

With John Apparite, I tried to strike some kind of balance between, say, Le Carre or Ludlum's characters and Ian Fleming's Bond. Sure, Apparite engages in more gun- and knife-play than any spy likely ever did in an eight week span, but I've tried to keep it reasonably realistic in most other aspects, often basing what occurs on some real event from the past (see the website for more specifics in Cold War Tales Relating to UCOD).

I also tried to correct some problems I've seen in other works: for example, Apparite rarely uses his "real" name; he tends to lay low while on duty; he does have a lot of down time where he doesn't do any real spying; and he's not out trolling for chicks all the time, to name a few. Lastly, I wanted what he did to affect him. I looked at his secret agent experience as being akin to that of a man in war-time: he can be fired-up one minute but burned-out the next; he has nightmares and panic attacks; he becomes ambivalent about whether he can continue to do his duty. I've basically given Apparite "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder" because I think that would be a natural result of doing what men like Apparite must do. It's unrealistic to think that he could kill all those people--some in very cold blood--and not be affected by it.

Anyway, that's the reason why even the most accurate and exacting spy novelist has to take some liberties with reality. And why Apparite can kill nine men in a butcher shop and survive. And why the climactic scene occurs in the Reading Room of the British Museum and not a warehouse in the East End.

But it's also why, I hope, the book motors along without too many slow patches, and remains reasonably entertaining throughout. It's a tough balance, and time will tell whether I succeeded in maintaining it to the reader's satisfaction.