Don't you wonder why this even needs clarification?

I am a little confused. Last week there were news stories stating that President Bush "gave the CIA the clarification it was needing" when he stated that "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment" of terror suspects is banned. (See: "Bush bans terror suspect torture.")

The Convention against Torture was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1984; it was signed by the first President Bush in 1988; and it was finally ratified by the United States' Congress in 1994 (fn. 1). Even before that, the United States was a party to the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions, both of which prohibited torture of combatants and those hors du combat during wartime.

Article 2 of the Convention against Torture states:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

When ratifying the Convention, the United States congress further clarified its understanding of the treaty:

(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.

Therefore, can someone please explain something to me. If the United States has not been engaged in illegal torture for the past six years, why exactly does a treaty that we have been a party to since 1994 suddenly need clarification by the President?

Fn. 1: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm