Is the Rack torture?

Overheard by UC Davis philosopher Gerald Dworkin (HT: Leiter), several Bush Administration heavyweights offer their views on a hotly contested question:

Mukasey: I haven’t been read into the details of the Rack, and I understand that these details are classified. I am firmly opposed to torture, torture is illegal, but I do not know whether the Rack is torture. To comment further would be to expose sincere and loyal Inquisitors to the possibility of retro-active condemnation.

Bush: I am not going to give aid to our enemies by disclosing details of our interrogation techniques. But if we do expose detainees to the Rack it is not torture, because we do not torture.

Cheney: A little stretching never hurt anybody. I understand it’s actually recommended before exercising.

John Yoo: It is well established that torture involves inflicting pain equivalent to that of the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. No one stretched on the Rack has ever suffered fromkidney, lung, or spleen failure nor, to the best of my recollection, has died. As to impairment of bodily function, it would be a stretch to include deformed limbs under this heading.

David Addington: Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to use the Rack as an interrogation technique than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield. Decisions about whether to stretch or not require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress.

Gonzalez: I cannot recall what the Rack was. Nor do I have any recollection about whether I ever discussed it with the President. The testimony of some that they heard me mention the Rack in a meeting on March 23rd -- a meeting which I do not remember --may have been a confusion of Rack with Iraq.