stilicho:

The real answer is that the Left blows hard to go after Bush while idolizing thugs around the world. I would break torture down to:

Torture against Citizens for political purposes - Really Bad

Torture Against Military Personnel in War-Really Bad, but you have to expect it from the dirtballs we fight.

Torture Against a Select Few Scumbags who kill civilians as their modus operandii-Bad PR and probably due to overzealousness. American's are not torturers in general and if a few interrogations got out of control, the problem should be fixed, not made subject of a political which hunt. These idiots brough the problem on themselves by associating with or working the killers of 3,000 of our fellow citizens. I am not for routine torture, but all this handwringing overs these a-holes is too much. Too bad FDR isn't alive, we could throw him in jail for his abuses which are far worse than Bush's.

For better or worse, your definition of torture is irrelevant. It is already defined, and as defined it is a crime under US law. However, there is leeway in sentencing in that the sentences for a torture conviction could range from a fine to death.

Although your argument for "Torture Against a Select Few Scumbags" is irrelevant since it is illegal according to US law, I'll bite on it.

Your argument is predicated on the assumption that the people we are torturing are associated with Al-Qaeda. However, very few of the detainees at GTMO and Abu Grahib have been charged with any crime and subsequently convicted of any crime even though the tribunals were set up to obtain convictions by not even letting the accused know what they were accused of. This begs two questions: 1) Do you rely only on the prosecution's assertions to convict someone? and 2) how "associated" do you need to be to warrant being tortured?

For question 1, a "yes" answer flies in the face of the last 800+ years of Anglo-American Law (as Justice Scalia might - and did - say). A system were convictions and sentences - including death - can be obtained without the accused having a chance to defend himself or herself is indistinguishable from tyranny.

For question 2, do you need to be a foreign national? Do you need to be Muslin? Do you need to be Arab? Do you need to be a muslim Iraqi? Do you need to be a Muslim Iraqi, but not a Kurd? Do you need to be a non-Kurdish Muslim Iraqi who dislikes the US? So how do you determine that the person is part of the group you want to go after?

The point of the rule of law is that there are criteria in place for determining guilt and innocence, and, most importantly, the person determining the guilt is not the same person who accused the person of being guilty.