A No-Brainer
Why are we debating torture?

Senator McCain is pushing an amendment that would bar torture by US agents and soldiers. Cheney is asking for a modification that exempts the CIA overseas. Let’s see now what are the core questions: "Is torture compatible with our principles?" and "Is it in our best interests?" Is it just me, or are the answers so blindingly obvious that even someone on the reading level of "My Pet Goat" ought to get it. USA Today points out the obvious in its editorial today.

Forget, for a moment, the legal and moral questions surrounding
government-sanctioned torture and consider the practical one: Does it produce useful information?

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was tortured repeatedly during his 5½ years of solitary confinement in North Vietnam, answers no: The tortured will say anything to stop the pain.

McCain's insight offers lessons for U.S. conduct in the war on terror: Abusing prisoners elicits intelligence of questionable worth. It also unquestionably undercuts American values and produces international revulsion.

McCain and a majority of senators from both parties understand this. The Bush administration still doesn't get it.

[. . . .]

Passing the McCain amendment amounts to a confirmation that the United States, including its intelligence operatives, will abide by the International Convention Against Torture. That shouldn't be a problem: The United States signed the treaty. Rejecting the amendment would send the appalling message to the world that its sole superpower reserves the right to torture.

Make your voice known on this issue to your elected representatives in Congress. This is certainly another area mightily calling for a defeat of the Bush administration's position. Bush doesn't have enough "political capital" to pull this off, if the public speaks out against the Cheney changes.