Inappropriate Content: McCain's Posse

As I type, the McCain Amendment sits on the President's desk. I like to imagine George W. Bush in the Oval Office, living out his own version of The Telltale Heart, as H.R. 2863 (amendment 1977) sits unsigned in the desk drawer, it's hideous, er, unsigned-ed-ness growing louder, louder, louder...

In any case: it now seems that some conservatives are put in the awkward position of defending torture. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts has said "interrogating terrorists is some of the valuable information we get. It saves lives."

This is the argument put out by Dick Cheney, National Review, and other conservatives. But it is flat-out wrong. In January, The Washington Post's Anne Applebaum trotted out a string of military interrogators to explain, simply, that torture does not work. "If I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals," points out one Vietnam-era combat interrogator, "he's going to tell you just about anything."

The second argument is expressed, in a crude letter to the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger with the claim that the McCain amendment will "place us in a disadvantage and will signal an unwillingness to act aggressively in our own self-defense." Even NR believes "the McCain amendment could do harm: It will be widely interpreted as making it impossible to treat enemy detainees any differently from U.S. criminal suspects. This is an unreasonable standard, and one we will come to regret."

The folks at Democracy Arsenal have repeatedly eviscerated this argument, but the most heartening view comes from conservative Ramesh Ponnuru:

I am inclined to disagree. I think this view undervalues three things. First, the amendment may have some effect in fighting a great evil, torture. (The editorial argues that it won't, since it merely codifies existing practice while creating opportunities for interpretive mischief; but if there is anything to the idea that previous policies have "sent the wrong signal" and that the amendment would send a better one, that would be a mark in its favor.) Second, the amendment may improve America's image in ways that help our foreign policy. (I think that the counterargument that some people, though not my colleagues, make, that it will make us look weak, misunderstands the nature of American power.) Third, the amendment may increase congressional involvement, and accountability, in the war on terrorism. As Reuel Gerecht and Tom Donnelly have argued, that buy-in may be worth some congressional excess--and I'm not sure that this is excess.

Ponnuru is a staff writer for NR. Much better than finding out you agree with someone you always agree with, is finding out someone you disagree with on practically everything agrees with you on the most important things. It reaffirms my faith in the idea that conservatives and liberals can sit down and have a drink without things sounding like Crossfire. And, y'kno, humanity.