There is an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to some of the rhetoric coming from the White House these days on the subject of torture and treatment of detainees held in the war against terrorism.

On his South American swing, President Bush responded firmly to questions from reporters: "We do not torture," he insisted, when asked about alleged secret CIA prisons overseas.

That should be reassuring, but what, precisely, does the president mean? That's a legitimate question, considering back in Washington his administration is struggling to exempt the CIA from a proposed law that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of people held in U.S. custody.

Apparently, in some semantic netherworld, "cruel and degrading" treatment does not add up to torture.

This is no abstract matter. We now learn from The Washington Post and other sources that the CIA is operating covert "black sites" in Eastern Europe and other places, in direct violation of the United Nations conventions and our own policies.

The U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states: "No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

That's precisely what these black sites are.

Now, incredibly, the White House is attempting to shift the debate from the morality and legality of these secret camps into a side-circus about who might have leaked information about them to the media.

That's the wrong approach and clearly misses the real issue of how these camps conflict with our current policy and rhetoric on torture.

The bill on torture pending in Congress and championed by Sen. John McCain, himself a former prisoner of war, is based on the Geneva Conventions. Bush has already determined that those policies do not apply to captive terrorists since they fight for no country and do not wear a military uniform.

How's that for an exquisitely fine distinction?

The McCain proposal would essentially take the dictates of the Geneva Conventions and the existing U.S. Army Field Manual guidelines on interrogations and make them standard policy for anyone held in custody by our forces.

Not only would this ensure that we follow our own best principles, it would offer clear and consistent guidelines for troops who are charged with handling and questioning detainees.

The House should approve the legislation despite the president's threats to veto the bill.

Should that happen, the veto should be overridden. The United States must hold itself to the same standards it sets for others.