The media has grossly distorted this issue. It has nothing to do with torture. There is already a federal statute banning torture. The dispute was over McCain's ridiculous definition, which bars "cruel, inhuman, OR DEGRADING treatment or punishment." (emphasis added)

What the hell does THAT mean? At least one Gitmo detainee claimed that he was degraded because he was forced to deal with a woman guard. If we have a high-level AQ detainee in custody, I say, degrade the hell out him.

May I ask you about the "ticking time bomb" (or more likely "ticking WMD") scenario? Is "torture" still off limits?

If you think that's unrealistic, I'll give you a more subtle version. We capture Zarquawi -- someone we know is a high-level terrorist who has tremendous amounts of valuable information -- the identities and locations of high-level associates, the locations of safehouses and caches of IEDs and other weapons, information about planned and ongoing operations, etc. Obtaining this information will save at least hundreds and more likely thousands of innocent lives. He won't tell us anything. What do you do?