Tortured Logic

In another forum, Reductio had this to say about the pro-torture language that Dick Cheney is urging a Congressional conference committee to include in a bill for a Congressional vote:

I realize the combination of dropping a supreme court nominee and the potential indictment of senior administration officials for high crimes and misdemeanors is somewhat distracting, but I think recent developments in the area of the Bush administration's support for torture as a component of its policy are worthy of mention.

Congress attaches an amendment to the military appropriations bill to make clear that under US law, torture and related prisoner abuse is always and everywhere illegal for Americans. Now admittedly, just about all right thinking people can see that the current state of the law is also pretty clear on this matter, but apparently there are a few folk (which would obviously include the [Attorney General] and other administration members up to and including Bush) for whom the current law is insufficiently explicit, and therefore believe that there are situations where torture is legal (under US law). So the world's most august deliberative and legislative body takes action to make the law more explicit, in order to clear up that confusion.

What is the administration's reaction? First to threaten a veto outright, scuttling the entire bill to preserve the loophole in
current law, that only they believe exists, and which they maintain makes it legal for them to engage in torture.

Then, they come up with a proposed legislative compromise; they are OK with US military being always and everywhere prohibited from torture, and with everyone being prohibited from torturing IN AMERICA, but want the president to be legally able to order (or in the case of this administration, keep ordering) torture abroad, as long as it is not done by the military.

Now, in the past, when I've indicated my position that one could (and IMO should) well infer from the existing evidence that the administration supports torture and prisoner abuse as part of its policy, I have been accused of engaging in hyperbole. Further it's been suggested that my view is that of an anti-Bush ideologue, rather than a gimlet eyed assessor of the facts (which is how I see myself).

So, I guess my question ... is this: Now that the administration has made clear its support for the president's right
(and I use that word loosely) to order torture, and even threatened to bust out the veto to preserve that right, and further has outlined legislation to codify and enshrine that presidential prerogative, is there now sufficient evidence for me to infer that the administration supports torture and abuse as policy options without being derided as a hyperbolic Bush-hater...?

Naturally I expect to continue to be mocked as a hyperbolic anti-Bush ideologue for other matters, I am just inquiring about this particular `support for torture and abuse' inference.

Now let's be clear: Torture isn't one of those many government policies which one can choose to disagree with, and yet support its advocates in other matters. Advocating laws to permit government operatives to enagage in torture, in defiance of intenational treaties, common decency and rock-bottom morality, should permanently disqualify you from government service in the United States of America. There is no wiggle room on this question for a moral nation. Those who advocate such laws are traitors to America, pure and simple, and should be tarred, feathered, and exiled forthwith as black stains on the proud heritage of this country. There is no excuse for torture. None. It is the most egregious form of barbarism, and has absolutely no place in civilized society. Just as its advocates have no place in a civilized society.

Surrender your thirst for blood. It is degrading.

Thanks to Rex Saxi for the New York Times link.