From CNN (AP wire) today:

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain and President Bush’s national security adviser remained at an impasse Wednesday over the senator’s proposed ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign terrorism suspects.

“At this point, discussions are ongoing,” national security adviser Stephen Hadley told The Associated Press as he left McCain’s Capitol Hill office after a meeting that lasted just over an hour…

You’ve heard a lot of bluster from Senator McCain, and a lot of patience from the administration. The United States doesn’t torture. We KNOW that. So, is McCain just being a stickler? (yes) Does his amendment go too far? (it sure does) Will it hamper our ability to interrogate in an effective and timely manner? (you bet it will) Is John McCain a little too close to this issue and maybe a little “not right in the head” about it? (hey, you said it, not me, but now that you bring it up it sure looks like it)

We’ll examine the whole issue and let you draw your own conclusions (McCain’s kind of a nutjob).

Let’s begin by looking at some of the amendment that’s at issue. It’s all really, really technical, so you probably won’t understand its nuances and you might not see immediately why it helps the enemy kill us. First:

SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL.–No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

(b) APPLICABILITY.–Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.

(c) CONSTRUCTION.–Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.

Wow. See that? Think about it: If someone’s captured or detained by the US military and not accused of anything specific, the DoD is obliged to follow the standards of the US Army when it comes to interrogation!

Some of you might suspect that this effectively closes the Gonzales Loophole. Exactly. It basically says the United States is automatically bound by some standard or another of prisoner-treatment rules, no matter who they capture! It takes away the US’s right to have prisoners that fall under no official rules whatsoever. Think about that. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

As I said, it’s all very, very technical. But let’s press on:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General.–No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(b) Construction.–Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

(c) Limitation on Supersedure.–The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

Wow. Talk about closing loopholes! This section comes right out and says that it can’t be secretly superseded. No matter where the prisoners are! Even if they’re at a facility that doesn’t technically exist. What’s the point of secret prisons and secret prisoners if we can’t have secret rules for them? Why, we’d might as well be abiding by the Geneva Convention when you put it that way. Is THAT what McCain’s really getting at? [Geneva’s in Europe, by the way. Right near the French border.]

Also, the Bush administration objects to those weasel-words, “cruel, inhuman, or degrading.” Those terms are just an open invitation for peaceniks and so-called “prisoners’” so-called “families” to sue the United States into another recession. How do you define those terms, anyway?

Oh, wait - there’s this next section:

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.–In this section, the term “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'’ means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

All right, the gloves are off. It all comes back to some antiquated 20 year-old definition that McCain found in some musty old book. From before 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. [Sorry, I’m having some trouble with my keyboard 9/11 9/11 9/11]

But no, you’re not imagining this. McCain’s amendment defines “torture,” more or less, as “something that is officially defined as torture by the United States of America.” Pretty sneaky, huh? The ol’ bait-n-switch. Or something. Is that the kind of country we want to be living in?

Still not convinced? Hold the phone.

Some of you might be tempted to think that this is the whole debate. You might get the idea that this is all McCain is asking for and that it’s pretty clear and that all this amendment does is prevent any US military or intelligence employee from torturing prisoners. I want to caution you that there’s a lot of subtlety at play here, that things are not what they seem (if they seem that way). It’s very complicated, and there’s a lot of legalese and complex stuff and if I posted the entire amendment you wouldn’t understand it but if you did you’d see why the Bush administration can’t really agree to it and still protect our country and…

Oh, wait. That is the entire amendment.

Oh.

Well, rest assured that it’s not as clear-cut as you might think (if you think McCain’s right). There are… things. To consider. Technicalities. Tons of ‘em, in fact. Yes, tons of technicalities and consequences and repercussions that extend in lots of unexpected ways from this seemingly simple and clear prohibition of torture. Yes. That’s why it may look like McCain has offered a politically and morally and strategically unassailable amendment, and it may look like the Bush administration opposes it just because they want to use cruel and inhumane techniques in some circumstances… that’s why it may look that way but it totally isn’t that way at all and you’d know that if you were smarter.

So if McCain wins this stalemate and this thing becomes law and the terrorists win, you’ll know who to thank. As I said, make up your own mind. I’m just offering the facts. As an American, you’re free to your own opinion and there are many sides to any debate.

[By the way, McCain spent five years as a prisoner, being tortured. That can do things to a man’s head. Not saying it has, but, you know, it can. That’s all I’m saying.]