Very briefly, the Geneva convention does not provide for counsel at the initial processing at the CSRT.
Secondly, he has been provided counsel. I think Lieutenant-Commander Kuebler appeared before you, and no doubt you were impressed by him. He represents his client very zealously and ably. I think there's no question that he's being provided with adequate counsel, which I think was your third point.
As for coercive interrogation, I'm not going to sit and defend the torture of detainees. There is a provision in the appeals process--and during the military commissions themselves--for the court to decide whether a detainee has been subjected to coercive interrogation and to reject any evidence that's been produced by that, and that can be appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court. So I think there's a process in place for preventing any information that's the product of coercive interrogation from ever being used, and I would strongly condemn the use of any torture against detainees.