You don't torture people. Say it with me this time: you don't torture people! Just the ladies this time: you don't torture people! Hey CIA, throw your hands in the air! And wave them like you just don't care... about the Geneva Convention.

Recently, official government documents dating back to 2005 showed up at the New York Times letting the world know that the Central Intelligence Agency was canoodling the business of torture. "Harsh interrogation techniques," as they put it, were being used on high profile detainees who were "believed" to have information about an attack against America. The official statement from George "Beetle Bailey" Bush is that the U.S. "does not torture people," but as we all know, Bush II saying something does not necessarily make it true. He defends the practice of "harsh interrogation techniques" by arguing that they are effective and necessary to protect America. One thing missing from the president's press conference was any facts or research backing up his statements, but the documents remain classified against the wishes of Congress. But everyone knows by now that gathering facts and performing actual research does not work well with our "shoot first, ask questions maybe" foreign policy.

Where to begin? Bush throughout this war has promised not to authorize the use of "abusive interrogation techniques," a statement he has reiterated when these memos surfaced. But this administration has been all but clear cut on its torture policy. Bush and his rag-tag team of torturers have found every loophole in the book and used it to their advantage. You have to admire their determination though; they have managed to dance around a bounty of executive orders, any sense of morals or ethics, and various international laws, not the least of which is the Geneva Convention. Trying to keep Bush from torturing people is like trying to keep Garfield from lasagna. Even when Congress passed John McCain's amendment to properly classify and limit "interrogation techniques," the White House fought kicking and screaming. The amendment passed with an impressive 90-9 vote, but that did not stop Bush. He wasted no time adding a signing statement that gives him freedom to bypass the amendment. If the president were to listen to anyone, you think it would be John McCain, who has been a supporter of the war and knows a little something about torture. During the Vietnam War, McCain was a prisoner of war for five-and-a-half years where he experienced the horrors of torture. This is a drastic contrast to Bush, who spent his Vietnam War days at a Bob Evans.

When the great "Invade Iraq" debate started, one of the main justifications for invasion was closing Saddam's torture chambers and ending the injustices within. In a country where there are two sides to every issue, those chambers were easily one of the least divided issues of the war. Even if those who were against the invasion hoped for the torture chambers to close. While there was much ado about Saddam torturing people, we were doing the exact same thing in our own torture chambers...er...interrogation rooms. The revealing of those memos turned one of our small victories in Iraq into a steamy pot of hypocritical gumbo. Where would you rather be: an CIA-run interrogation room for "possible terrorists" or a terrorist-run interrogation room for, well, possible terrorists?

We are better than this. America is better than this. Did we really storm Saddam's torture chambers just to turn around and put up an "Under New Management" sign?