Good faith - in torture

James Carroll had a good - no, very good - piece in the Boston Globe yesterday.

No one's vote meant more than Senator John McCain's, and here is where the first shock is felt. After leading the charge against torture in all its forms - McCain has been vigorous in denouncing the Bush administration's refusal to outlaw waterboarding - the Arizona senator voted against extending his own firmly stated standard to the CIA.

"What we need," he said in explaining his vote against the Intelligence Authorization Act, "is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program." Because McCain, a torture survivor, has such credibility on the question, his negative vote provided cover for many others, which is why Bush's expected veto can be upheld.

But what is this appeal to "good faith"? Firmly rebutting McCain's assertion, Lieutenant General Harry Soyster, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and one of the most active of the Human Rights First cadre of military leaders, said, "But as Senator McCain well knows, the Bush administration has never provided a good faith interpretation of laws prohibiting torture; instead it has produced - and continues to produce - legal opinions that downgrade the definition of torture to the point where the term becomes virtually meaningless and any conduct at all is permissible."

Again: read it. And ponder this: McCain is "not conservative enough" for many in his party.