Wordsmithing in the Oval Office

A former lawyer and President, Bill Clinton, once said, "it depends on what your definition of "is" is". Most reasonable people would argue that the definition of "is" is pretty obvious, but Mr. Clinton raised the art of wordsmithing to a new level. His successor in office continues in this tradition. When speaking of the Geneva Conventions today in his press conference, the President said, "The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article Three are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges."

Here's the clause from Common Article Three that the President considers so vague and undefined:

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

While I'm willing to concede that there could be some activist judge who could believe that not providing prisoners with high-definition TV would be "humiliating and degrading", does anyone honestly believe that this is what the President is worried about? If you do, there's this bridge in Brooklyn that you might want to purchase.

The clause that the President should be worrying about is:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

As a Senate-ratified Treaty, the Geneva Conventions have the full force of law in the United States. I haven't had the opportunity to read the President's proposed legislation yet, but I suspect that he is looking to narrow the scope of the protections accorded by the Treaty. Does anyone believe that this is something the world's most powerful nation should be doing?