Ray, maybe you didn't click on the first link Randy posted; the story covers McCain's recent vote in the Senate to sanction the use of torture by the CIA.

To say someone supports or opposes anything based upon the title and stated purpose of any major congressional bill is so fraught with conjecture I didn't bother to comment on it. What was that insulting anti-gay rights bill called, "Defense of Family Act" or some such? So voting for it means you love mommies and daddies and voting against it means you want to break up every traditional nuclear family left? Oh please. Why did McCain say he vote against the bill? Check the NY Times for his response:

(link...)

Salient point:

Mr. McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has led the battle in recent years on a number of bills to end torture by the United States. He said he voted against the bill Wednesday because legislation he had helped to pass already prohibits the C.I.A. from “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.”

Mr. McCain, of Arizona, said he believed it would be a mistake to limit C.I.A. interrogators to using only those techniques that were enumerated in the Field Manual, which he noted was a public document.

“When we passed the Military Commissions Act, we said that the C.I.A. should have the ability to use additional techniques,” Mr. McCain told reporters Friday in Oshkosh, Wis. “None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.”

McCain doesn't want the CIA's interrogation techniques limited by the contents of a public document. That would mean our enemies can prepare to deal with all the specific forms of interrogation permitted to the CIA. Whether or not you agree with his reasoning, it's hard to argue it's because he supports torture. It's also clearly noted McCain helped force previous pieces of legislation on the Bush Administration to ban the use of torture by the CIA.

I think, however, the human rights advcates have a valid argument here:

The problem, human rights advocates say, is that disagreement remains over which tactics are prohibited. Mr. McCain, for example, said waterboarding — a simulated drowning technique — was an illegal form of torture. But while the C.I.A. says it no longer uses waterboarding, the Bush administration has not ruled out its use in the future.

“It’s disappointing,” said Jennifer Daskal, a senior counsel at Human Rights Watch, “that Senator McCain, who has long made it clear that Congress had intended to outlaw abusive interrogation techniques including waterboarding, won’t stand up to an administration that continues to say waterboarding is O.K. in certain circumstances.”

I agree the techniques allowed to the CIA in interrogating prisoners ought to be enumerated, but McCain's concern about this being a public document carries some water with me. The obvious solution would be a compromise that enumerates the techniques, but does so in a document not accessible by the FOIA. Wonder why that didn't happen once it became clear the bill wouldn't pass and would be vetoed if it did? Was this bill a poison pill crafted to force a Bush Veto on a Torture Bill in an election year? I honestly don't know.

But surely you see that claiming McCain now supports torture because of a specific issue with one particular bill is a bit of stretch?

I would now like to conclude my defense of John McCain. I'm not really the best qualified person to offer it. Surely someone reads this board who actually plans to vote for McCain?