Neither President Bush, nor his nominee for Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, nor anyone else in the Bush administration is willing to publicly answer the simple question: "Is waterboarding (an interrogation method that simulates drowning) a form of torture?"
The excuses they have given for their reticence to answer the question are themselves tortuous: Bush argued terrorists would get an advantage if he answered and Mukasey cited his concern that to answer would, "put [interrogators'] careers or freedom at risk" ("Mukasey hearing turns testy," 10/19).
In truth, even if Bush acknowledged waterboarding was torture, terrorists know that the US "out sources" (through the program known as "extraordinary rendition") harsh detainee interrogation to countries where waterboarding is employed, and thus terrorists determined to steel themselves against this simple and widely documented technique are not waiting for a definitive answer from Bush which they would in any case presume was a lie.
As for Mukasey's alleged concern for protecting the interrogators- nothing could put them more at risk than not knowing whether the methods they employ are legal under international conventions.
In short all this obfuscation boils down to the proposition that Bush & Co. will not say whether they approve interrogation techniques against our enemies that they would consider torture if our enemies performed them against US citizens.
In a just world President Bush, Vice President Cheney, other members of the Bush Administration and some Republican and Democratic members of Congress would find themselves facing war crime charges at The Hague, where they would have to publicly and explicitly defend their torture and "preemptive war" policies.