Quote: the G-man said: I think the basis for the threatened veto may be the use of the word "degrading." That's a pretty broad term and one could easily argue many things that are commonly accepted as humane treatment of prisoners are, however, "degrading" to them.
In fact, if you outlaw "degrading" treatment of prisoners, I guarantee that the ACLU or some other group will argue that orange jumpsuits, regimented meals, sparse cells and other typical and necessary conditions of imprisonment are "degrading" to people who crave individuality in their ordinary lives.
...others question whether the U.S. government will have enough leeway to get the information that they need. It is still uncertain if the deal would limit measures such as stress techniques even in interrogations of high-value terrorists who may know about coming attacks.
Some analysts add that limiting "degrading" treatment could mean almost anything. For instance, a female interrogator questioning a Muslim prisoner could be perceived as degrading to the prisoner.
"If you apply it literally, it prohibits detention as such because it is absolutely degrading to be sitting, instead of running around and applying your trade of killing Americans, it is degrading to be sitting in a cell," said David Rivkin, an international law attorney and former Justice Department official.
