Why doesn't it ease my mind?

From The New York Times:

Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose subordinates have written confidential legal memorandums seemingly approving of torture, told a Senate committee today that President Bush had "made no order that would require or direct the violation" of either the international treaties or domestic laws prohibiting torture.

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ashcroft was assailed with questions about a cascade of recently disclosed memorandums in which lawyers from his Department as well as those from the Defense Department and elsewhere in government provided legal justifications for using torture in interrogating people detained in the fight against terrorism.

Ashcroft says Bush "made no order that would require or direct the violation" of treaties or laws prohibiting torture. Which was precisely the reason for the memo, entitles "How to Torture Enemies and Influence Enemy Combatants Without "Violating" the Law." So is Ashcroft saying that the lawyer's memo was followed and no violations occurred in light of it? Or is he saying it was ignored altogether. Not very clear, is it. And precisely why it doesn't put my mind at ease.