where have we heard this before?

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General in the Bush cabinet, was before a Congressional Committee concerning the use of torture [White House Asks Congress to Define War Crimes, New York Times, August 3, 2006]. Senator McCain entered into an exchange with Mr. Gonzales regarding the use of testimony and information gathered through the use of torture, not only about its reliability but also its admissability in court:

The differences between the administration and the Senate were most pronounced when Mr. McCain asked Mr. Gonzales whether statements obtained through “illegal and inhumane treatment” should be admissible. Mr. Gonzales paused for almost a minute before responding.

“The concern that I would have about such a prohibition is, what does it mean?” he said. “How do you define it? I think if we could all reach agreement about the definition of cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment, then perhaps I could give you an answer.”

The exchange reminded me of something I've heard before:

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair.



In other words, it depends on what the meaning of "cruel" and "inhumane" and "degrading" is.

Cruel: is indifference to suffering and even positive pleasure in inflicting it. Wikipedia

Inhumane: cruel and savage, not humane Wikipedia

Degrading: to lower in value or social position Wikipedia

I checked several on-line dictionaries for the definition of each word. They said almost the exact same thing as Wikepedia.

What dictionary is Mr. Gonzales using?

just asking...