I can’t believe people are actually debating the merits of torture.  What a giant dark cloud the right have hoisted on top of us.  Thanks for posting the wording of the Geneva Convention.  Looks extremely obvious to me.  I like the comparison with prescription drug bill which the right is more than happy to keep as is.

SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR FOR “YOUNG INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS” (AND FOR THE REST OF US):
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES (BUT NOT FOR THE REST OF US):
42 U.S.C. Section 1395w-102. Prescription drug benefits:
(a) Requirements—
(1) In general
For purposes of this part and part C of this subchapter, the term “qualified prescription drug coverage” means either of the following:
(A) Standard prescription drug coverage with access to negotiated prices
Standard prescription drug coverage (as defined in subsection (b) of this section) and access to negotiated prices under subsection (d) of this section.
(B) Alternative prescription drug coverage with at least actuarially equivalent benefits and access to negotiated prices
Coverage of covered part D drugs which meets the alternative prescription drug coverage requirements of subsection (c) of this section and access to negotiated prices under subsection (d) of this section, but only if the benefit design of such coverage is approved by the Secretary, as provided under subsection (c) of this section.
(2) Permitting supplemental prescription drug coverage
(A) In general
Subject to subparagraph (B), qualified prescription drug coverage may include supplemental prescription drug coverage consisting of either or both of the following:
(i) Certain reductions in cost-sharing
(I) In general
A reduction in the annual deductible, a reduction in the coinsurance percentage, or an increase in the initial coverage limit with respect to covered part D drugs, or any combination thereof, insofar as such a reduction or increase increases the actuarial value of benefits above the actuarial value of basic prescription drug coverage.
(II) Construction … ETC.

Appears Bush lost his cool…seems to have been doing a lot of that lately in reference to the whole Article III issue.