Passing thought

On January 27, U.S. diplomat Bruce Connuck told the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that the US "remains steadfastly committed to upholding its obligations under international law relating to the prohibition of torture."

Doesn't it say something about all that's been revealed that we found it necessary to actually say we're against torture? I mean, isn't that the sort of thing that one would, in a sane world, just be able to assume?

This ranks right up there with "I am not a crook." And just about as accurate.

Footnote: The full text of the Justice Department's December 30 memo on torture, the one that pretty much pulled an Emily Latella routine on the earlier, deservedly infamous memos, can be found here as a .pdf file. In reading through it, bear in mind this is an interpretation of law, it is not law. That is, it's about what laws against torture mean. In the hands of determined amoral people, meanings can be very flexible. Some of the earlier memos didn't actually approve of torture - they just redefined what the word "torture" means, restricting it to that which causes pain and suffering on a level associated with organ failure or death.

And as I noted back on November 14,

a Justice Department official said separately, "No matter what the provision is in the Geneva Convention, they are subject to legal interpretation."

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'"