Have you seen the Senate Armed Services bill?
[link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3901:|Senate Bill 3901].
Some of the provisions trouble me, but I don't know enough about the details to know if they represent a significant change. What are your thoughts? Or if you prefer, what do you think is an unreasonable aspect of the bill that would cause Bush to be so opposed to it?
The fact that Bush is so adamant about the GC provisions tells me that Warner, Graham and McCain are right in their belief that passing Bush's version would do grave damage to our [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/washington/17cnd-detain.html?hp&ex=1158552000&en=393e8f644b2c5234&ei=5094&partner=homepage|moral standing in the world] because it would give at minimum the appearance of authorizing torture and degrading treatment:
The three senators have warned that if the United States unilaterally retreats from Geneva Convention protections, other countries could do the same, with potentially disastrous effects for Americans.
\ufffdIf it seemed that our country was trying to redefine the Geneva Convention to meet the needs of the C.I.A., why can\ufffdt every other country redefine the Geneva Convention to meet the needs of their secret police?\ufffd Mr. Graham said on \ufffdFace the Nation\ufffd on CBS. \ufffdIt would be a disaster.\ufffd
If an American agent were captured in Iran, tried on secret evidence and sentenced to die, Mr. Graham said, \ufffdAmericans would go crazy.\ufffd
Hadley's defense of Bush's position on "This Week" on ABC struck me as extremely weak and legalistic - not based on principle. But the only principle that the Bush administration seems to fight for is "My Way or the Highway". :-/
Cheers,
Scott.
