In the latest issue of NR, there’s a short editorial opposing it. Here’s a portion of it: “Our view is that it is right and in our interest that enemy prisoners be treated humanely. The chain of command should have had a much better handle on how detainees were being treated (which would have prevented some of the infamous abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan). But we don’t want to rule out pressuring high-value detainees in ways that fall short of torture but would draw the disapproval of Human Rights Watch. We have gained valuable intelligence through such means and could do so again. In today’s political environment, however, it is impossible to say this without being accused of wanting to stack naked detainees in pyramids and break their legs. And here is where the McCain amendment could do harm: It will be widely interpreted as making it impossible to treat enemy detainees any differently from U.S. criminal suspects. This is an unreasonable standard, and one we will come to regret.”

I am inclined to disagree. I think this view undervalues three things. First, the amendment may have some effect in fighting a great evil, torture. (The editorial argues that it won’t, since it merely codifies existing practice while creating opportunities for interpretive mischief; but if there is anything to the idea that previous policies have “sent the wrong signal” and that the amendment would send a better one, that would be a mark in its favor.) Second, the amendment may improve America’s image in ways that help our foreign policy. (I think that the counterargument that some people, though not my colleagues, make, that it will make us look weak, misunderstands the nature of American power.) Third, the amendment may increase congressional involvement, and accountability, in the war on terrorism. As Reuel Gerecht and Tom Donnelly have argued, that buy-in may be worth some congressional excess–and I’m not sure that this is excess.