There is good reason to take the words of an important member of the American Government seriously. Earlier this week, Condoleezza Rice told an audience in Kiev that the United States has obligations with regard to the U.N. charter against torture. It does not allow cruel, inhumane and humiliating treatment of suspects; "and American personnel, wherever they are, inside or outside the U.S., are bound by these obligations." Rice elaborated on her speech at NATO headquarters in Brussels, clearing up the issues of treatment of terror suspects, secretive detention facilities and secret CIA flight - issues that divided Europe and America - in one fell swoop.

But there is also reason to be cautiously reserved about what Rice had to say. However, caution was not what we heard from Brussels yesterday. It is remarkable how quickly skepticism can turn into benevolence and obedience. Dutch Secretary of State Ben Bot, who earlier this week stated in the Dutch Congress that American statements regarding the existence of CIA prisons were "unsatisfactory," said that he was "very satisfied" with Rice's explanation. However, there was no detailed explanation, or further proof, or in other words: real arguments that would put the long running rumors to bed. In the same way as Rice was unwilling to give specifics, Bot was unable to elaborate. The implicit message: we have to trust the words of the American Secretary.

Leg Irons and Hand Cuffs at Guantanamo Bay.

But the recent unpleasant experiences with American actions do not justify trust. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib provide facts that no one can ignore. Until there is real evidence that the abuse of terror suspects at the American naval base in Cuba have stopped can there be any reason for satisfaction. That is not the case today, in the same way that there are still too many questions swirling around the alleged CIA prisons, and ditto for the [secret] flights. Not only does the American government have to come up with additional specific information, so does Bot (and with him the Dutch Government). He will also have to elaborate in a much more detailed and precise manner than the vague terminology used by Secretary Rice.  

It is important to keep a very close eye on Washington over this matter. Vice President Cheney (and by extension President Bush) doesn't want a legally binding prohibition against the cruel treatment of terror suspects. On the other hand, Republican Senator and "expert-by-experience" McCain - POW in Vietnam - is pushing for just such a clause through an amendment to the defense budget bill. McCain is on the right track: there is a lot of wiggle room between verbal policy rhetoric and legislation, and not until McCain's amendment is signed into law will Condoleezza Rice's solemn policy proposals be legally binding.