Bowser, it seems to me that the conversation (not just here, but the whole debate) takes a wrong turn when it starts to get into grey areas and people start arguing over acceptable levels of torture. We start down that slippery slope of rationalization and lose sight of what ought to be a moral absolute: Torture is wrong. The use of torture by America is wrong and tarnishes our honor.

Arguments of necessity are sometimes correct, but we shouldn't forget that we pay a price in honor. Necessary isn't the same as right, and the discussion tends to blur that difference. The debate might properly be over what price to pay, but it should never be about when torture is the right thing to do. It never is, and we don't want to start down that slippery slope; we don't want to become desensitized and become no better than our enemies.

So if we sometimes can't avoid torture, should we just give up the moral argument? I don't think we can afford to, but it needs to move to a higher level. If the situation we're in compels us to commit moral transgressions, then our moral obligation is to get out of the situation. Here's what bugs me fundamentally: I don't think Bush has a plan to win the war on terror, and thus he's prolonging the situation that leads to things like torture. He keeps talking in terms of process, "winning", but rarely talks about an actual end. Bush invokes Cold-War images of a "long twilight struggle", which says pretty clearly that he doesn't see an end.

That's the shit I want to flame at. We can't defend the national honor by debating how much of it to give away when we find ourselves in a bind; we need to get out of the bind.