Pissing Match Update

I too don't want to get into a pissing match with Glenn Reynolds over torture since he claims his position is identical to mine. He's just much more "sensible" about these things. The sensible position against torture is to say you're against it, vote for and support the first administration in history that has legalized it, and then devote all your energies to minimizing or ignoring what they have done. If you think I'm being unfair, go read Glenn's archives on torture yourself and make up your own mind. The great thing about the blogosphere is that if you really do care about this kind of thing, it's all out there for inspection and for your own judgment.

But here's a question that springs from Glenn's public stance against any coercive interrogation that involves pain or injury (if you search the archives long enough, you'll find it). Why would someone who is genuinely against torture, as defined by the law, spend more time mocking, attacking and criticizing the opponents of torture than criticizing the torture itself? This is not, after all, a minor issue. We have a severe moral and intelligence and military crisis. After Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Camp Cropper, Gitmo, Hicks, Padilla, etc. is it not bizarre to be more upset by the critics of torture than by the politicians who have enforced it? And the politicians who are still strongly supporting it? And after last week's debate on torture, do you think that someone who strongly opposes torture would write a post about the candidates' positions on the subject - in order to mock John McCain?

How, in short, does someone opposed to torture believe that the main phoney in this debate, the main man worth taking down a peg or two is ... McCain? It just baffles me.