Fact: One key issue is a section of the Geneva Convention, which sets international standards for the treatment of wartime prisoners. Known as Common Article 3, the section bans "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
Bush says this language is vague and leaves intelligence agents in doubt about whether some of the harsher interrogation tactics they have employed are legal. He has asked Congress to clarify the language.
Opinion: Clarify the language? So the breaking of ribs is a no, but maybe a finger or two is O.K? Are we going to be this specific? What is Mr. Bush, asking us, that some degrading treatment is acceptable? Does the means justify the end? What if the person is innocent, "Oh well so sorry for the treatment, our bad, no hard feelings! Here have a Big Mac on us. It's a good thing you were captured by us, because if you were captured by those crazy Canadians, they would have made you watch Jim Carey films over and over again!"
If the modification to the language is changed, and the next time an American citizen gets captured or arrested for whatever trumped up charged, and he or she is tortured, we should not be surprised or appalled. Where is our morality? Our values? I am not naïve to say that US never tortured any prisoners in our history prior to this war on terrorism, but to have the US government make it official and blatantly go against the Geneva Convention is discouraging.
One man's humble opinion, and just because we disagree does not make me a lesser American. It does not make me any smarter or dumber. It just means we think differently and that is a good thing. We can't all be the same and I'm sure we don't want to be all the same.