Over at Balkinization,
Marty Lederman (Law, Georgetown) brings some clarity to the torture debate on Capitol Hill:

At Last, the Issue is Publicly Joined . . . and When All the Smoke has Cleared, the Central Question is Quite Simple      

And
it is this: Should the CIA be legally authorized to breach the Geneva
Conventions by engaging in the following forms of "cruel treatment"
prohibited by "common" Article 3(1)(a) of those Conventions?:

— "Cold Cell," or hypothermia, where a prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees, during which he is doused with cold water.

— "Long Time Standing,"
in which a prisoner is forced to stand, handcuffed and with his feet
shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours.

— Other forms of "stress positions" and prolonged sleep deprivation , perhaps akin to "Long Time Standing."

— Threats of violence and death of a detainee and/or his family.

(These are the CIA techniques that have been widely reported, including in this ABC News Report
and in Ron Suskind’s book [The One-Percent Doctrine]. To the extent some of these techniques are
not among those that the President is now euphemistically designating
"alternative," or to the extent the Administration is attempting to
preserve other techniques currently prohibited by Common Article 3, the burden is on the Administration to clarify the record.
They have resolutely refused to disclaim any of these reported
techniques, and so I think it’s fair for Congress and the public to
assume, absent contrary evidence, that these are among the techniques
at issue in the current debate. If we’re going to authorize conduct
currently prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, we ought to know just
what we’re signing on for.

What about waterboarding? My sense is
that the debate is no longer about waterboarding. I have heard
scuttlebut from several sources that not even the lawyers in this
Administration — who apparently were
able to conclude that waterboarding was not torture — have been
willing to say that waterboarding is legal under the McCain Amendment’s
prohibition on conduct that shocks the conscience. Therefore, I think
(but am not certain) that waterboarding has not been a viable option
since December 30, 2005 — which explains, perhaps, why the Vice
President was so insistent on creating a CIA exception to the McCain
Amendment, i.e., because he thought that waterboarding could not
continue without such an amendment (or a Commander-in-Chief override).)

A bunch of other questions that have been dominating the public debate really ought to fall to the side now.
…

[It’s not about] the authority of interrogators to yell at detainees, or subject them to Eminem or the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Nor
— contrary to the Administration and to many press accounts — is it
primarily about the meaning of Geneva’s prohibition on "outrages
against human dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment."

Unfortunately, even the New York Times can’t get this straight.  In "Bush Says GOP Rebels Are Putting Nation at Risk" (Sept. 16), the Times repeats the Bush/Rove line:

The dispute centers on whether to pass legislation reinterpreting a
provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3 that bars
“outrages upon personal dignity”… Mr. Bush argued that the
convention’s language was too vague and is proposing legislation to
clarify the provisions. “What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human
dignity’?” he said at one point.

But, as Lederman points out,

The CIA isn’t much interested in the outrageous and inane forms of
humiliation — underwear on the head, religious degradation, etc. —
that the military used at GTMO and in Iraq. Those things may be
illegal, they might violate Common Article 3, but they are not what the
Administration is tring so diligently to preserve. The Administration
is, instead, seeking authority to use threats of violence, and the cruel physical techniques listed above, akin to classic forms of torture.

That is what this current legislative debate is about. 

"Stress positions" and devices to compel them have a long history.  One of the best-known examples is the "Little Ease," a cell barely large enough for its occupant, who was unable to stand upright, sit, stretch, or find any comfortable position.  The 16th century Jesuit martyr Edmund Campion was confined in "Little Ease" in the Tower of London, followed in the 17th century by Gunpowder Plot conspirator Guy Fawkes.  Cells of similar description–4 feet high, 4 feet long and 20 inches wide–were used by US Special Operations in Iraq, according to the New York Times, "Pentagon Study Describes Abuse by Units in Iraq" (June 17, 2006), along with "cold cell" and starvation.  In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court unanimously outlawed the use of stress positions, shaking, and sleep deprivation as interrogation techniques–but, what would the Israelis know about combating terrorism, right?

Of course Rove wants the issue to turn on the meaning of "outrages upon personal dignity," which–hey!–might include hazing the pledges over at Animal House.  What is not understandable is why reporters at the New York Times are falling for it.  Or is that understandable too?