The intent of Common Article III appears to be based on each individual signers interpretation of what might be out of the norm for detainee interogation. It begs to be interpreted, and this is all they are asking for. (Using McStain's interpretation)
I heard Warren make the statement that SCOTUS would not agree with the interpretation. This is crappolla!
SCOTUS practically begged Congress to put in writing what article three means, because they did not think it their job to do so.
These Senators are trying to punt this back to the courts, in the middle, or possibly the beginning of a long conflict where our asses are on the line. They are angry with SCOTUS and the president fo making them work. They don't like their responsibilities being shoved at them and are trying to send a message but have brought a McCain to a Bush fight.
The vagueness of the language is impossible to work with. They will interpret it, or the House will do it.
Actually, McStain is purporsely interpreting it as something else. He's implying that the president wants to torture prisoners, while the president is looking for better protection from assinine lawsuits in US courts, most of which are likely to rule things like "refusing to give prisoners chocolate ice cream for dessert every Friday night = destroying their human dignity."
As for POWELL....well, he's being Powell. Most likely, McStain put him up to writing that moronic letter. I used to rather vehemently defend Powell's performance in attempting to sell military action in Iraq to the UN Security Circus. Now I think maybe I was wrong all along. Maybe he didn't do anywhere near as good a job as he could have and Old Europe wasn't entirely to blame for the UNSC setup.