So, 'an unambiguous legal test for torture', writes Ms Lithwick, is "conduct that shocks the conscience". Wow. THAT's unambiguous? What grammatical planet does Ms Lithwick live on? and what language does she speak there? What does the word 'unambiguous' even mean to her? And by her standard, what could possibility constitute an 'ambiguous' test for torture? 'Conduct that might, in some circumstances, shock the conscience', perhaps?

Here's one to try on: "Waterboarding is torture." Hmmm. Ambiguous standard? or unambiguous standard? you decide. I frankly can't tell what Ms Lithwick would think; and why she resists this simple 3-word sentence as a clear (and truly UNambiguous standard). If you want waterboarding to be torture, say so. It's not rocket science.

Then maybe you can stop dancing around the issue and playing 'gotcha' with well-meaning people.