Eli and Reihan argue that my opposition to the Bush-approved torture of prisoners is not a serious argument but a sincere expression of emotion. But the two, of course, are not mutually exclusive categories. It is possible to make a very serious argument about the ineffectiveness and danger of the executive branch's use of torture - and also express emotion about what that has done to the integrity of the war on terror, the moral standing of the West, and the suffering and death imposed on human beings in custody. If I ever stop feeling anything about naked prisoners beaten and left for long periods of time in frozen cells, or slammed against walls, or turned into mental cases, then I will cease to be the human I am. And Eli and Reihan must surely also understand that I believed in this war and wanted it to succeed because it would defang evil, not perpetuate it, and advance human rights, not violate them in the worst way imaginable. You can no more torture your way to the rule of law than you can destroy a village in order to save it.

It is, moreover, unfair to say I have compared the Bush administration with the Nazis. I haven't.