Condi's comments in Europe yesterday are a perfect illustration of the difference between conscious deception and lying -- and why the former is *worse* because it shows so clearly how deliberate their intention to deceive is.
So when people say -- often justifiably -- that the administration isn't lying, it's not a defense. A conscious deception that isn't a lie is worse than a lie because it so clearly is policy and isn't a mistake.
As to the yesterday's thing, it's amazing how many papers of record and spokesmen both her and and Europe were taken in by what Condi said -- not only the WP but also today's FT and lots of public officials on both sides of the pond. (Although with the public official it's not always clear. Some might possibly be misinterpreting on purpose.)
The best parsing I've found is by Eric Umansky of Slate's Today's papers:
http://www.slate.com/id/2131863/
<excerpt>
The Washington Post fronts the shooting but deems Secretary of State
Rice's latest, and deeply ambiguous, comments on the U.S.'s treatment
of detainees lead-worthy. Said Rice: "The United States' obligations
under the CAT (Convention Against Torture), which prohibits cruel,
inhumane and degrading treatment, those obligations extend to U.S.
personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or
outside of the United States."
The Post is alone in asserting that Rice's comments herald a
significant change. Here's how the WP's coverage begins:
<inner quote>
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the United
States prohibits all its personnel from using cruel or inhuman
techniques in prisoner interrogations, whether inside or outside
U.S. borders. Previous public statements by the Bush administration
have asserted that the ban did not apply abroad.
<end inner quote>
That is obviously what Rice wanted people to hear--that U.S. personnel
are prohibited from engaging in "cruel, inhumane and degrading
treatment" anywhere. But it is not what she said.
http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/12/torture_policy__2.html
Here's the out: While Rice asserted that the U.S. abides by the
"obligations" of the
anti-torture treaty across the globe, the administration's legal
position is that those "obligations" don't extend to the treatment of
foreigners being held overseas. In other words, according to the
administration's long-standing legal position, CIA interrogators in,
say, secret prisons in North Africa aren't bound to treat foreign
prisoners humanely.
The Post wasn't the only one to have a tough time getting a read of
Rice's circumlocutions. Her underlings did, too. "State Department
officials" in the NYT talked up her comments as "an important policy
statement," with one adding that it was "a change" in policy. One of
those "officials" might want to poke their head out of the door and
chat with the State Department spokesman who, according to the LAT,
insisted that Rice's comments simply reiterated what has already "been
the U.S. policy."
<end excerpt>
More detail:
http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/12/torture_policy__2.html
Michael