Media, semantics, and separation of powers

It's interesting to read the news stories about the Senate Armed Forces Committee's decision to hold fast in draft legislation to requiring that terrorism suspects in military commissions be given access to classified information and to be able to suppress confessions obtained through coercion (not rising to torture).  What is particularly interesting is how the news media have described the Senate committee as "def[ying]" the President.  (See, e.g., NY Times here)

Why has the media chosen the word "defy"?  That makes it sound as if the Senate has some duty to obey the President.  A more neutral word might be "disagree."  The President wanted to be able to use classified evidence without revealing it to the suspect (only to the suspect's military lawyers) and to use coerced confessions where there was indicia of reliability.  The Senate committee was not persuaded and drafted the legislation otherwise.

The answer may be more support for the theory that the role of political parties today has far outstripped the traditional conception of separation of powers between the branches.  The power struggle is seen not so much between Congress and the President as it is between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.  (The Court does seem to be fighting for power against the other branches, but whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is an entirely different question.)  Right now, with the Republicans controlling Congress and the President, there is, rightly or wrongly, the expectation that they get to decide things, with the Democrats just along for the ride.  And since the President is traditionally the head of his party, President Bush gets to decide how things should be.  And that's why the Senate is defying him.