So the details of the 'compromise' between the three mice and the Bushies are not yet known, but this Dog bets that they will show how the mice caved, in that they agreed to some bogus method of 'redefining' torture. What's to redefine or refine and why--because the Bush is convinced he might learn something by abusing people?
To be repetitive: Consider the ticking bomb scenario. If you know that W knows where the bomb is and where it is going off and if you know that W will only spill that information through torture, then you are justified in torture, the argument goes. I leave it to my few faithful readers to figure how many fallacies are wrapped up in that specious logic, but I will say that if you know all those things from the start, which is to say you know the outcome already, you have no need to capture, much less torture W.