Thought I'd actually read <a href="http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm">Article 3</a>. Seems pretty clear and unambiguous too me. I applaud Bush's efforts to clarify it however, let's get a good description of waterboarding in there, and prolonged sleep deprivation, let's really spell out what a "stress position" is. It seems dangerous to codify an interpretation of an international treaty without consultation/approval of the other signers. Doesn't it? Of course, we've come to expect that this President has a high disdain for the efforts of our legislators, so the multilateral efforts of nations can't be that big a thing to blow off.
Can't wait to read Iran's interpretation. They evidently are free to interpret Article 3 anyway they please.
This guy just doesn't seem particularly, umm, presidential, <a href="http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/youtube_of_the__12.html">here</a>, does he? I really hope he's drinking, a happy drunk instead of an angry teetotaler makes me feel a bit safer vis-a-vis the Commander-in-Chief.
Let's also get this straight: I'm not against "stress positions" or "fake drowning" just because I'm a pansy. It's also not pragmatic. Information retrieved by these methods are not reliable.