We're not there yet on torture

Happy times at HuffPo and Andrew Sullivan over W.'s cave-in to the McCain torture amendment, and I'm happy, too, almost. But we're not there yet.

Not only is Duncan Hunter carrying water for someone with his "Until I receive assurances from the White House that we have the same high level of effective intelligence gathering capability that we presently have (does that mean we still waterboard?) and also with the protections for American personnel (does that mean anyone who tortured or authorized torture cannot be held accountable?), I won't sign on to the bill." My paraphrase (and my parentheticals), but I think I'm accurate.

Also of concern was AG Alberto Gonzales on "The Situation Room" in which he dodged Wolf Blitzer's direct questions on the order of "Does that include waterboarding?" or "You do agree that waterboarding is torture?" Gonzales refused to commit to an answer, finally dismissing the issue with a "I'm not going to debate specifics with you, Wolf," reminiscent of his dodges during the confirmation hearings.

If Bush is truly caving and ready to live by the law, why is Gonzales still refusing to identify what is torture and what is not? I can only assume it's because the administration, Pentagon, even State and, of course, the CIA, are all concerned about their potential exposure, either in our courts or international courts.

It's more of that "We didn't do it, and we'll never do it again, but if we did, which we didn't, you still can't prosecute us because we're immune by law."

A sorry stance that amounts to a confession before the world, coupled with an insult. "And you and your bloody courts can't do a damned thing about it."