It Depends on What You Mean by "Torture"

It astounds me that Alberto Gonzales is expected to be a shoe-in for Attorney General.

Quick recap:
Bush responds to September 11th and says the nation is at war. Since the Industrial Age, if you are at war, most civilized nations understood that the Geneva Conventions, an international treaty on the laws of war, apply. Then in January 2002, Gonzales writes a convenient memo for Bush saying that the Conventions don't apply. Then in August 2002, a memo is written for Gonzales crystallizing his view that "torture" is defined only as severe pain that would accompany "organ failure, impariment of bodily function, or even death." So beating a prisoner with a broom stick is okay (only temporary damage); having a dog bite a prisoner is okay (only temporary damage) and so is pouring phosphoric acid on him (only temporary), all of which happened at Abu Ghraib.

I tried to maintain some skepticism because legislators from all colors were shocked by the mistreatment and yet they are going to confirm this man. But a letter today from 12 retired military generals to the Senate Judiciary panel confirms that something is very wrong:

Mr. Gonzales' recommendations -- those he wrote and those he supervised--... and the actions that followed not only put our troops at risk, they put our nation's honor at risk.

Even if Gonzales was not the source for authorizing violations of the law of war, an Attorney General is not supposed to be a yes-man for breaking domestic and international law.