Bush is not lying when he says he doesn't torture...

[CoffeeCat]

pResident Bush has adamantly insisted that, "We don't torture." The fact is: The pResident is telling the truth.

Remember the internal government "torture memos" that surfaced in March of 2003? Those memos revealed that BushCo had redefined the definition of torture to suit their own needs.

The March 2006 report, prepared for pResident Bush and crafted by Pentagon lawyers says exactly this: "Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions," it suggests, "if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith."

In effect, it's not torture--as long as your primary intent isn't to "cause harm"--but to get information.

In effect--no physical, emotional or psychological act--no matter how brutal or inhumane-- is "torture" if the interrogator is engaging in the act to get information.

Got it?

So, when the pResident told Katie Couric--"We're doing smart things to get information" ..."I've said to the people that we don't torture, and we don't,"--he's not lying.


Link to article on 2003 torture memos:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/25/leavitt.torture/index.html

[Solly Mack]

1. it's the old "did you sleep with him/her?" thinking

Well, if all we did was have sex and not sleep, then I didn't sleep with him/her...even if the question being asked is accepted to be about sex.

So if I redefine torture in my mind, then I don't torture by your definition...and that's how Bush frames his actions. He claims laws are open to interpretation that clearly state what is and isn't legal...and then redefines the terms

[Benhurst]

2. Tell me it ain't so! You're saying Bush slipped one past Katie Couric,

"host" of the CBS Evening News, and got away with it?

Oh, dear, or dear! What is this world coming to?