His position of torture is silly. He says we should not torture the enemy because then they’ll treat US prisoners badly. But none of our enemies ever treated American prisoners humanely. Take the three American captured soldiers murdered by Al Qaeda and dumped in a river. They were in uniform. Their rules of engagement are designed to minimize the risks of civilians dying. They were following the Geneva conventions to the letter. What good did it do them?

And that’s the way it has been for a century. The Nazis probably treated American POWs the best. They only massacred them when they tried to escape, or were Jews, or Black. The North Koreans and North Vietnamese gave the Geneva conventions short shrift when it came to American POWs. Our current enemies are far worse. An American captured by a Muslim savage, be he a soldier or civilian, can only expect torture and a miserable death. Danny Pearl and Nick Berg] are prime examples of what happens if you are captured by our enemies.

John McCain wasn’t tortured because the US was torturing Viet Cong prisoners. He was tortured to serve the war policies of the North Vietnamese. If he could be made to do what Jane Fonda was doing for free, then he would help advance the cause of North Vietnam. To his great credit, McCain was steadfast.

Torture is not a black and white situation. There are a range of techniques ranging from the mild to the extreme. Back Talk writes:

The issue of how you classify interrogation techniques is important. Instead of using just two categories (torture vs. not torture), let’s use three:

1. basic interrogation techniques (used on typical, low-level detainees), such as those listed in the Army Field manual

2. harsh interrogation techniques (used only on high-level al Qaeda detainees), which cause no real physical harm, and any longer term psychological harm that may occur is purely theoretical, such as water boarding, sleep deprivation and standing for 8 hours in a chilly room.

3. torture (used, if at all, only in the “ticking time bomb” scenario in which an al Qaeda operative has information about a nuclear bomb set to go off in a major city), which involves the infliction of pain using all kinds of terrible procedures.

The techniques that I’d place into the “harsh” category are those that we are willing to use on our own soldiers during training (which has been true of water boarding) and that would actually bring a sense of relief if we knew that worse techniques would not be used on our captured soldiers in Iraq. Once interrogation techniques are sensibly classified like this, I’d declare myself to be against torture, except perhaps in the ticking time bomb scenario. In fact, that is my actual position on this issue. I’m anti-torture except in that one extreme case.

To be fair to McCain, a parsing of his response on torture suggests that he believed the President could allow laws against torture to be broken in ticking bomb scenarios. The reality is that water-boarding works pretty well, cause no physical harm, and gets terrorists to spill their secrets. Is McCain against water-boarding any terrorists suspected of killing those three American soldiers?

McCain is for the immigration bill. No matter how you cut the cake, that bill is amnesty first, America second. That scores him a huge zero.

Finally, we have McCain-Feingold. It gave George Soros complete freedom to buy the Democratic party while severely limiting the GOP; that’s a simplification but that’s how it worked out.