More on making it explicit

Consider this a footnote to yesterday's post.

Washington (AP, June 8) - Attorney General John Ashcroft said Tuesday he was not aware of any order by President Bush that would violate U.S. laws or treaties banning torture of military prisoners captured in Iraq or elsewhere in the war on terrorism.

"This administration rejects torture," Ashcroft declared under tense questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he steadfastly refused to comment directly about a policy paper on this issue, or say whether Bush ever responded to it.

Yeah, but - but -

One of the arguments made in the paper is that if done under presidential order, it wouldn't be a violation of law. So Ashcroft's statement is meaningless except as possible subterfuge.

And considering what we already know and what has already been acknowledged, it's hard to credit the statement that the White House "rejects torture" except to the extent it defines the term so narrowly that nothing short of the rack or burning with red-hot irons would qualify.

(And by the way, why do White House water carriers keep saying "this administration?" Is Ashcroft implying that some other administration would countenance torture?)