Not meaning what they say it means

Once again the NYT doesn't quite get the story right:

U.S. Lawyers Agreed on Legality of Brutal Tactic

Well, in fact, not so much. The story is based on some leaked Jim Comey e-mails that say something else. The OLC was asking about whether the nasty interrogation techniques being considered were in compliance with 18 USC 2340-2340A, the anti-torture federal statute. Marcy has the dirt:

That is ... [the] OLC was clear that the advice did not extend to the Geneva Conventions or the Convention Against Torture. The question at hand was, did waterboarding and sleep deprivation comply with a law--2340-2340A, not whether it complied with all laws.

Follow the link.