Anne-Marie Slaughter. "Our founders looked to law as constraint, not as license; as a check on power, not authorization. The difference is a matter of honor, of values, of identity itself."

Factually inaccurate (It's only a lie if it was intentional, which I have no way of judging). FDR opened up concentration camps for Japanese-American citizens and relocated thousands of them to those camps without due process.
Lincoln's soultion to anti-war protesters was hanging them; re: the New York Draft riots.
If Ms. Slaughter is uncomfortable with the steps that are neccessary to win the War against Terrorism, she is free to leave. There are millions of people that would love to take her place in America. If she is not American, then she needs to mind her own business.
I would like to point out that Terrorists are NOT covered by any of the Geneva Conventions that the USA is a party to.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm

That is an URL to the international treaty that the USA is a party to. It covers:

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "

Please note that terrorists are excluded from this protection, since they are taking an active part in the hostilities, and they are not a member of the armed forces of any nation as determined by their lack of identifying uniforms, badges, etc. as well has having no distinct chain of command.
This part;
"with respect to the above-mentioned persons:"
Is what excludes the terrorists from protection.
If everybody was covered the above line wouldn't be there. In which case the USA WOULD NOT have become a party to the treaty. The USA refused to join the 1977 Convention for just that reason.

AS far as Morality goes, Morality is an individual thingie, it cannot be legistated or dictated.
If torturing one person can save the lives of many people, then it is immoral not to tortue that person.
Sometimes life doesn't offer a good choice, just the option of bad or worse.
What's important about this event is the fact that it will out the CIA dudes that are trying to overhrow the US government. What most foreingers don't realize and few Americans is that the CIA is activly seeking to bring down the Bush admninistration. This is treason and should be treated as such. So here is the administrations chance to put the CIA down for good. Replace it. Does anyone out there really think it's a good idea to have the USA controlled by a small cabal of disgruntled spys?
If Ms. Slaughter gets her way and the Jihadists take over ( a slim chance but not impossible) as she is dragged into the rape room prior to having her throat slit, George W, Bush and all us reactionary bastards will seem like a breath of fresh air. She might understand that we were correct before she dies. But it will be to late for her.

BTW, is Paris still burning? Maybe they need to pull their troops out of Iraq? How many European cities have to burn before you guys get off your tired, lame, socialist arses and take up your weapons? It is time for the Final Crusade. None of us will be safe until there is a christian church on EVERY corner in the Mid East.
Make Islam a footnote of history.
Like your buddy Osama said when he declared war on America back in '96, "everybody wants to ride the strong horse".

The ONLY poll that counted was held last November.
David demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of polling and what polls do. Polls track TRENDS. To give a poll number without reference to the polls that preceeded it is a propaganda technique. That 40% is only valid as a referent to other polls on the same subject. It is valid to say, PRESIDENT Bush's ratings are going down, or to say that PRESIDENT Bush has higher ratings at this point in his administration then either Clinton (27) or Reagan (32, IIRC) did.
Both statements are factual and relative.
To say the polls are at 40% is bogus.
The conculusions you draw from that poll are just as bogus as the poll itself. Where is your evidence? If this administration brought back the Rack and the Iron Maiden, I could claim that it would raise PRESIDENT Bush's rating. My statement would be easier to support then your.
That is because PRESIDENT Bush HAS NEVER had any support from the Left. So how can his ratings be slipping thru losing what he never had? No, the fall in support comes from the Right. Those are the people that would support a little torture if it saves lives. Like so many things, it isn't the act, but the intent. If the Torture serves a greater good ( saving lives) , then it is proper and should be used. Some people just lack the intellectual requirements to understand that concept.
Round Ideas in Square Heads.
This administration is losing support because it is losing it's base. That will change. The Demonrats attempt to make being a Republician a crime will backfire big time in November of '06. By then the battle of Iraq will be winding down and the various trials of innocent Republican Political figures will have ended in aquitals.
Senators in Red States will be lining up book deals and the congresscritters will be bragging aboyut how they supported the WoT all along.