the other day his imperial majesty said "outrages upon human dignity"—his misquote of a geneva convention phrase—is vague and needs clarification in our law, but at ellis island on the first anniversary of 9/11 he said

ours is the cause of human dignity: freedom guided by conscience and guarded by peace.

i assume he understood what he meant then. perhaps that's a wrong assumption, but if not it implies he objects to something in "outrages upon."

that's vague?

we can say this: even if we don't have a clear definition sitting in front of our faces, everybody knows none of us wants outrages done to us, so all we have to do is avoid doing to detainees what we wouldn't want done to us if we were detainees, and we'll be fine.

clear nuff yet?