I Can't Believe We're Having This "Debate"

It truly sickens me that the United States government is discussing what they euphemistically refer to as "alternative interrogation techniques." Never mind that when the government starts using euphemisms (e.g., "collateral damage"), it's time to run the other way. Basically the government is looking for a sanction to torture people without calling it that. Great; as if it doesn't hurt to torture someone as long as you call it something else.

I have already written far more in this blog than I ever wanted to about torture. It is self-evident to me that torture is bad, it is wrong, and it is dangerous, disastrous public policy. It demeans both the torturer and the victim, and it lowers the threshold for future abuse.

Josh Marshall made a good point the other day:

If you were to pick the single greatest hypocrisy of the Bush Presidency, wouldn't it have to be this: that the man who ostentatiously claims Jesus as his favorite philosopher (he of "do unto others as ye would have them do unto you" fame) would say, in all seriousness, "Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. "What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity'?"

WWJD, indeed?