A reader writes to ask why I haven't commented on the United States' use of torture while interrogating suspected terrorists. Originally I was going to make a joke about the use of an Epilady as a torture device on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But that would be making light of both the unimaginable suffering he is accused of causing and the moral basis of American jurisprudence, for which I have the most profound respect.

My position is simple. Violence -- which includes physical and psychological torture -- should never be used against a person who has been captured and therefore poses no immediate threat to anyone. It is a punishment without a conviction (not that torture should be used as punishment after conviction). To condone the use of torture is to say that there is no act which cannot be justified by claiming a proper motive.

For more perspectives, see Tim Henley and Kevin Drum on their reasons for opposing torture.