As President Obama tries to steer something approaching a "middle course" on investigating the criminal actions of the Bush administration, the rhetoric used can be informative. Neither the president nor his spokespeople are using the word "torture" to describe the torture techniques used. Instead, they prefer "harsh interrogation."

The problem is that "harsh interrogation" connotes something perfectly legal, while it seems obvious that the methods used were not, by any legitimate stretch of the imagination, legal. Of course, Bush administration officials tried to rationalize the methods, and Dick Cheney is all over Fox TV saying that they were at least effective and kept America safe (meaning the ends justified the means). But we need a new phrase, one that paints a more accurate picture.

Enter the New York Times.

In an article dated April 21 on how quickly and cavalierly Bush administration officials decided that these methods were legal, the Times uses the phrase "brutal methods of interrogation." The word "brutal" may be the answer we need to convince President Obama that those who condoned torture, including Bush and Cheney, should be prosecuted.

Let's hope it works.