Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings: It all depends what you mean by torture Tony.

In her speech before leaving to Europe, Condoleezza Rice said this.

“In conducting such renditions, it is the policy of the United States, and I presume of any other democracies who use this procedure, to comply with its laws and comply with its treaty obligations, including those under the Convention Against Torture. Torture is a term that is defined by law. We rely on our law to govern our operations. The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances. Moreover, in accordance with the policy of this administration”

What does she mean by the phrase “our law" to govern our operations”?(my emphasis)

I’ll have a stab at this.
Remember the Gonzales memo? On 25th January 2002, Alberto Gonzales then Bush's chief legal advisor, wrote a memo to the President. In it he wrote:

...this is a new type of warfare - one not contemplated in 1949 when the [Geneva Convention] was framed - and requires a new approach in our actions towards captured terrorists."

Subequently he asked a member of the Justice Department, Jay Bybee, to prepare a lengthy opinion on the relevance of the Geneva Conventions to the International War on Terror.
Dan Froomkin summarised the 50-page memo here

[He] concludes that acts inflicting and specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering, mental or physical, must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture. It also concludes that cruel, inhuman, or degrading acts may not produce the necessary pain or suffering to qualify as torture. The memo concludes by outlining defenses to claims that the law against torture was broken including Commander-in-Chief authority, necessity, and self-defense. This memo in effect provided a rationale for using torture and provided narrow and complicated definitions of torture in order to avoid the possibility of being charged with breaking laws prohibiting torture. The memo says that torturing terrorists abroad “may be justified” and that international laws prohibiting that torture might be unconstitutional in reference to torture occurring during the interrogation of suspected terrorists. The memo was used as a source of legal guidance for the CIA. The White House has referred to this memo as a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture and not a document designed to provide advice on specific methods or techniques.”

So, when on her trip Condi refers to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading acts, remember she’s referring to the definition under “our law”. And that is miles away from any definition, which would be accepted in European, or international, courts.

You can find a lengthy military analysis from Phillip Carter in the Washington Monthly here
I've written on Extraordinary Rendition here where there is a link to the Bar of the City of New York and University School of Law,Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law applicable to “Extraordinary Renditions”

The question m/s Rice should be asked is what does she mean by torture? Though, sadly,I doubt she will be.