washingtonpost.com: Legalizing Torture: "Perhaps the president's lawyers have no interest in the global impact of their policies -- but they should be concerned about the treatment of American servicemen and civilians in foreign countries. Before the Bush administration took office, the Army's interrogation procedures -- which were unclassified -- established this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of U.S. or international law. Now, imagine that a hostile government were to force an American to take drugs or endure severe mental stress that fell just short of producing irreversible damage; or pain a little milder than that of 'organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.' What if the foreign interrogator of an American 'knows that severe pain will result from his actions' but proceeds because causing such pain is not his main objective? What if a foreign leader were to decide that the torture of an American was needed to protect his country's security? Would Americans regard that as legal, or morally acceptable? According to the Bush administration, they should."

This very clear editorial from the Wash Post lays it out there pretty well. Bush and his administration seem to have forgotten some of their own theology, in that they are supposed to treat others the as they might want to be treated. They don't do that.

Another blog noted that Bush's statements from the G8 summitt are not comforting. He claimed that his administration had ordered his people to follow the law. But they didn't follow the law and not just a few bad apples. So, is the President in charge?