A wise gentleman I know made this comment:
I agree completely that waterboarding is way out of line for the holders of the moral high ground but I also think that using it to beat up Makasey is out of line too. He's said clearly that torture is unconstitutional and can't be condoned under any circumstances and then he's asked to officially denounce as a potential attorney general a practice that has no firm definition, particularly a firm legal definition. I think that's a form of litmus test that should be resisted for any cabinet official.
That distinguished between the underlying torture issue and the politics & potential repurcussions of the particular exchange.

We've had a raging discussion over here on the SWJ Blog, c/o Malcolm Nance, regarding the underlying torture issue.

What are your thoughts on the latter part of that statement?