Sullivan's questionable reading comprehension

Andrew Sullivan has a post in which he links to an LA Times article regarding changes (the removal of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention) in what Sullivan believes to be the Army Field Manual. The post is a must read, though not in the way you would think. It is 'must read' in reading comprehension, or, rather, the Andrew's lack thereof.

To be fair to Andrew, the LA Times article header 'Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule' is misleading. In fact, the article is actually talking about the removal of Article 3 from the DoD Directive 2310.01, the DoD Enemy POW Detainee Program, which, on quick read, is not part of the Army Field Manual. I think that Andrew is thinking that Article 3 is being removed from Field Manual 34-52, which deals with intelligence interrogation.

So, in reality, Andrew's sensibilities on torture are still being preserved by the McCain Amendment, which prohibits interrogations "not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation." However, his passion and zeal have once again produced a post based on flawed reading.

I'll throw Andrew a bone, though: a post about actual changes in the AFM.

**UPDATE** June 5, 2006 9:16PM

It also sounds like, from the article, that Article 3 was removed some time ago, perhaps in 2002, and that there was an effort recently to put it back in, thus the backstory of the article.

Among the directives being rewritten following Bush's 2002 order is one governing U.S. detention operations. Military lawyers and other defense officials wanted the redrawn version of the document known as DoD Directive 2310, to again embrace Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

Interesting. Does this mean that the LA Times article is not about the removal of the Article, but about the failure to reinsert it? If so, what's news about it then? Hmmm...This sounds like old news made to appear new to further push public opinion against the Bush Administration.