Negraponte on Common Article 3 Clarifications

Negraponte comes out pretty much stating what I've been trying to get at:

The current debate centers on legal questions concerning Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. In June, the Supreme Court determined that Common Article 3 applies to al-Qaeda terrorists.

The administration is committed to complying with the law of the land, and we must ensure our laws provide clarity on the vague standards contained in Common Article 3, such as “outrages upon personal dignity.” Thus, the president has asked that Congress clarify our treaty obligations just as it has done on many other occasions. Absent such clarification, our intelligence professionals would be subject to unpredictable legal interpretations, including those of foreign courts. This vital program cannot go forward unless the law is clarified.

The administration's proposal would not redefine Common Article 3. It would provide clarity by mirroring language written by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and passed by Congress less than a year ago as part of the Detainee Treatment Act.

Under this approach, our intelligence professionals would know what they can and can't do because the standard would be one that is well established in U.S. law as determined by U.S. courts.

Clarifying our laws would not jeopardize our troops. Lawful combatants such as U.S. soldiers would continue to be fully protected by all aspects of the Geneva Conventions. Nothing in the administration's proposal in any way would undercut these fundamental protections. The issue we are debating is the standard of treatment for unlawful combatants — those who hide among civilian populations and plot attacks on innocents.

Why is it so very difficult for McCain and his ilk to be able to tie the legislation for the interrogation methods that are allowed in the military with the interrogation methods for this legislation.