Religion & Law

Philosopher Chris Tollefson explains, here, at Public Discourse.  (ed.:  But wait, there must be some mistake.  Public Discourse is a front for right-wing Catholic torture apologists, isn't it?  We all know that Robby George and that crew care only about fetuses, and not about detainees, right?  RG:  ed, stop reading Andrew Sullivan.)  A taste:

It is important to be clear, as a moral matter, on what boundaries should be accepted in interrogation of human beings. These sorts of boundaries, regardless of whether they are called torture, or ?cruel, inhuman and degrading? treatment, are the ones that matter for our most basic assessment of how agents of the United States Government should comport themselves when questioning terror suspects. The discussion should not, that is to say, begin with questions about how the nature of the terrorists? crimes, or their status as illegal enemy combatants, affects what may be done. For, if there are forms of treatment forbidden as such for all human beings, then such forms of treatment will be ruled out for terror suspects just as for prisoners of war, and common criminals.

For another, different, but worth-reading take on the issue, by the always worth-reading Stuart Taylor, go here.