For God's Sake, answer just one question, Scott McClellan

If you want to go all nerdy and read today's Press Briefing, there's a good long section on renditions. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here is the killer question that set off the exchange. (And as per Mike's convention, I only print the questions because McClellan no longer actually answers them.)

Q What is the purpose of rendition, other than, if it is not, in fact, to subject detainees to a degree of interrogation somewhat more difficult than that which they would be subjected to in the United States? And that being the case, what definition of torture does the United States understand and accept?

MR. McCLELLAN: The ones that are defined in our law and our international treaty obligations. We have laws --

Q If that's the case, then why bother to render anybody?

Q Then what's the purpose of rendition?

Q But if we are committed to international conventions against torture, what, then, is the purpose of rendition?

Q But you seem to be suggesting that --

Q -- there's more to be gained by interrogating these people outside the United States than there is inside.

Q But how do we know they weren't tortured? They claim they were.

Q How do we know they weren't tortured?

Then the questions veer into monitoring whether or not torture is taking place to individuals we've rendered.