Writing on the Washington Post's blog thing this weekend, columnist Eugene Robinson came up with a reportedly good way to determine if the various "we don't torture" torture methods should really be considered torture by American courts: Torture Bush & Alberto! But only with the approved non-torture torture methods.

If we haven't actually put anybody on the rack or pulled out his fingernails, we haven't committed torture.

If that's true, then shouldn't the administration officials -- starting with the president himself -- who authorized these techniques be willing to experience them first-hand? Until George W. Bush can say, "Hey, I've been waterboarded, and it wasn't so bad," or Alberto Gonzales can say, "To tell the truth, spending those three days naked in a freezing-cold cell wasn't painful or anything," then I'll continue to believe that history will condemn this administration for a shocking lapse of moral judgment. Bush will be remembered as the president who tried to justify torture.

We're not lawyers, but it sounds like a pretty good way to figure out the law or whatever -- anything for justice and the defeat of the Islamic Fascists who run that Fascist government in that one country nobody can find, right? And think of the ratings for C|SPAN -- the whole "24" crowd might switch channels for a while, right? (Do they torture the presidents on the "24" or is it just Arabs? Alex plz ask interns, thx.)

Post editor says Bush, Gonzales should be tortured [Raw Story]

A "Modest Proposal" on torture [Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood]