I've been on road so I haven't had a chance to address Alaskaboys apologizing for torturers and other garbage.

First, use of dogs is torture escpecially if the victim is afraid of them (cuz if they weren't you wouldn't use it). Second, Rumsfeld didn't just authorize dogs, changes in diet, and isolation. He also added "long time standing" and sleep deprivation. Those touchy-feely Romans used to call sleep deprivation torture "tormentum insomniae". Individually these things are likely torture. Combined together over a period of weeks, they are certainly torture. I have absolutely no idea why you would say they are not.

If you read the Bush Adminstrations "torture memos" they certainly served to immunize our torturers from prosecution. They also waterboarded several people and said that waterboarding was legal at the time which means that it could easily be made legal again at a later date.

I am quite well read on this topic and knew about Scalia invoking Bauer several times prior to reading this article. The first was I believe during a BBC interview and the second was during a panel discussion on I believe the war on terror. Here is your link.

<link>

So why do you feel the need to join the ranks of torturer apologists and afficionados? History has been replete with those people. I didn't think we needed more.