That should be a key question in this debate.

Andrew Sullivan makes the point that according to McCain, he was subjected to the following as a POW in Vietnam:

The torture that was deployed against McCain emerges in all the various accounts. It involved sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, long-time standing, and beating.

Hmmmm.... those practices sound curiously similar to the practices the Bush-McCain administration deemed not to be torture - a definition John McCain condoned and approved when he voted for the Intelligence Authorization Bill back in February (one of the few votes "Senator" McCain has showed up for during this campaign).

So, "Senator" McCain: Was what you underwent torture, or wasn't it? If it was, then how the hell can you condone it as a practice of the United States government?

This is, quite simply, an open-and-shut moral case. Torture is wrong, period. Under all circumstances, in all situations, those who engage in torture and those who condone or approve its use are engaging in a grave moral evil. And anyone who supports those who condone or approve torture without speaking out forcefully and at every opportunity is equally guilty.

In February 2008, "Senator" John McCain, who once defied his generally-slimy character and stood honorably and morally to oppose torture, decided when it came to choosing between keeping his honor and winning the Republican primary, winning was more important than the deepest and most personal moral principles.

Anyone who calls him- or herself a person of conscience cannot support "Senator" John McCain, who is standing on the side of evil on one of the most clear-cut moral issues of our age.

Labels: John McCain, Politics, Torture