Bush claimed that the Geneva Convention, article 3 which forbids
“outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment”,
was vague and he needed more specific guidelines.
McCain, Warner,and Graham claimed that they were defending the Geneva Accords.
So there needed to be some sort of resolution to this "problem", a problem they created and pulled off as a fight in the public arena, but in the end Bush got exactly what he wanted, a law that specifies some particulars about treatment, but anything not on the list is fair game. AND
why do we even need the Geneva agreement when they have their own law now. A law that replaces the vagueness of the Geneva wording. Never mind that that so-called vagueness covers EVERYTHING that falls under “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment”.
Collen Rowley has an excellent breakdown of what actually went down, on the Huffington Post.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/a-missed-opportunity-for-_b_30052.html"Of the three major flaws in the bill Bush originally presented to Congress, only one has been removed: suspects will have the right to examine the evidence against them, subject to existing rules designed to protect national security. Protection against arbitrary and indefinite incarceration was not part of Bush's proposal, nor is it in the compromise bill. And despite powerful rhetoric about "the integrity and the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions," Bush got his way on that as well. Abuses which were never under discussion --- murder, mutilation and rape, for example --- are now explicitly prohibited; otherwise the President decides what can happen. In other words, this bill would explicitly allow the interrogation practices used at Abu Ghraib, so long as George Bush approved them"