This week Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, mounted a spirited defence of the Bush administration’s policies on torture and “rendition”, the cross-border transfer of terrorist suspects. “We’re operating under our laws, we’re operating under our international obligations,” is the refrain. But these cleverly crafted words do not mean what they appear to say. The US position is premised on the claim that its actions comply with US law and, since US law complies with its international obligations, these too are being complied with. The claim is flawed.

Take the definition of torture. The definitions under the 1984 torture convention and the relevant US statute are not the same. The threshold for torture is lower under international law: acts that do not amount to torture under US law may do so under international law. “Waterboarding” – strapping a detainee to a board and dunking him under water so he believes that he might drown – plainly constitutes torture under international law, even if it may not do so under US law.