LAT on torture

In a disingenuous editorial today, the LAT inserts an imagined word (the word "but") into a presidential executive order and concludes that the order allows torture, despite President Bush's assurances otherwise and despite wording in the order that, in a fair reading, would make torture unlawful. The LAT cites the opinion of a Georgetown law professor who argued that the order is unclear. Perhaps the law professor sees loopholes in the wording but the intent of the order seems clear. In a court of law, surely a judge or jury would look to the intent of an order to interpret its meaning. Clearly, the intent of the order is to prohibit, under a reasonable man test, acts that are "beyond the bounds of human decency."