Clarity in scare quotes

Memeorandum's headline is "Bush wants 'clarity' on interrogations," as if they thing he's using the term incorrectly. The NYTimes says the government lawyers are in the middle of this lawyers in the middle of the dispute. ty the poor lawyers. Actually the ones caught in the middle are the interrogation officers of the CIA and military. The CIA head has essentially advised Bush that they wouldn't continue interrogations without Congressional specifications. That's why he's mad and I don't blame him. What kind of a legal standard is this:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: . . .
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.. . .

What does "outrage upon personal dignity" or "humiliating or degrading" mean? Those are all subjective terms and pretty elastic. Are we to ask each terrorist whether he feels "outraged," or "degraded or humiliated" living there at Gitmo? No wonder no interrogator would want to continue doing the job with restrictions like that! It could refer to harsh language.

Bush's bill would define what violations are so that our interoggators know what boundaries there are. I doubt that most Americans believe that people like those detained at Gitmo should be protected from loud music, sleep deprivation or other treatment which doesn't inflict physical pain or injury, but merely wear down resistance to answering questions. There are some who think we should be asking their forgiveness, but not even the Democrats dare set foot on those eggshells. McCain, Graham, et al., though, are afraid that in some future conflict, we would be considered to have withdrawn from the Convention, and so are willing to risk our lives right now in order to protect our soldiers from being tried by the International Criminal Court, which asserts world wide jurisdiction, if they could be detained by that court. I think that we need to establish our own rules, and ignore the Europeans and their silly interpretations.

It may be time for the President to echo President Jackson, and let Congress and the Courts enforce their stupid attempts to tie his hands.