"We do not torture," the president said Monday in Panama City.

He's either outright lying or the administration has a very different definition of torture than the rest of the world. I would argue that it's both.

Let's go back to a Presidential Directive written by Al Gonzales and signed by President Bush on February 7, 2002.

The glossy sheen of the directive was designed to give off the impression that the president was prohibiting the use of torture, but in fact, the wording is murky at best and, as a result, conveys a tone of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" on the issue. Strange for an administration that prides itself on its either/or, good/evil international posture.

The directive specifically references al Qaeda and Taliban detainees and orders that they be treated humanely even though, in Bush's opinion in the directive, they're not protected under the laws of the Geneva Accords.

I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to "armed conflict not of an international character."

The humane part:

Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our Nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles...

Wink-wink. Now it gets murky. I would argue that it's deliberately murky so as to allow torture while, in the same breath, condemning it:

...As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

While we're here, the directive doesn't mention the CIA at all. That's because Dick Cheney wants the CIA to be allowed to torture detainees -- all detainees.

And "military necessity?" What constitutes "military necessity?" Is it a necessity to waterboard an accused insurgent to get information? Ask an unethical commander or Vlad Cheney and they'd most likely say yes. Ask the same commander or Vlad Cheney if waterboarding is torture. They might say no. This two-word phrase gives the military a free pass to do whatever it wants to do with detainees. Guilty, innocent, accused, or otherwise.

"Principles" is a bothersome word as well. To me, "the principles of Geneva" sounds like he's saying “the Geneva rules of thumb.’ “Principles’ can be laws, but they can often be seen as "guidelines" with wiggle room on either side. In principle, we're suppose to come to a full stop at a stop sign. In practice, many of us don't. Therefore, BushCo will allow detainees to be mostly tortured, but all-the-way torture -- not so much.

Without a definition of "humanely," that word, too, seems deliberately left up to interpretation. After all, is there a section of the directive that defines what is "humane?" Definitions of "humane" vary greatly. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough was on Real Time with Bill Maher Friday night and felt it was perfectly reasonable to waterboard a detainee. I do not. He thinks it's humane -- or at least acceptible. I think it's torture. Gray area.

Perhaps Vlad Cheney defines "humane" as doing whatever is necessary to ultimately protect the American people, even if that includes torturing people in eastern European gulags. What The Impaler doesn't seem to get, however, is that these practices are making us far less safe and besmirching what remains of our reputation abroad. I wonder what will happen after a victim of American torture is freed. Do you think they'd be more inclined to -- I don't know -- kill some of us? We can only deduce that Vlad doesn't think so.

Then there's the al Qaeda exemption... What constitutes a confirmed al Qaeda operative or a confirmed insurgent? Someone could be accused of being al Qaeda and be tortured without limitation (military necessity) and actually be an innocent civilian without any real connections to al-Zarqawi or bin Laden.

These are just a few of many loopholes through which Cheney and Bush drive their thumbscrews. Let's face it, this directive is really the catalyst for the administration's torture policy – it allows Bush to tell the world: "We do not torture," even though he´s threatening to veto any legislation containing the anti-torture McCain Amendment and while Dick Cheney asks the Senate to allow the CIA significant latitude on the issue.

Commentary: