Krauthammer argues (quite convincingly, as always) that if we accept there are certain scenarios in which it would be morally permissible to employ cruel and inhumane treatment against terrorists to save innocent lives then the intellectually honest thing to do is to set up a strictly defined regimen to accommodate such potentialities subject to control and review:

However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which, by any rational moral calculus, torture not only would be permissible but would be required (to acquire life-saving information). And once you've established the principle, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, all that's left to haggle about is the price. In the case of torture, that means that the argument is not whether torture is ever permissible, but when--i.e., under what obviously stringent circumstances: how big, how imminent, how preventable the ticking time bomb.

Krauthammer points out that McCain, author of the amendment banning torture under any circumstance, told Newsweek that he'd "do what he had to do" if ever presented with a "ticking time-bomb" scenario. In other words, McCain would break a law written by his own hand and authorize torture to save innocent lives.

Today the estimable Victor Davis Hanson weighs in on the subject. Despite ceding substantial chunks of intellectual ground on why the McCain amendment is a bad idea, VDH argues we should embrace it anyway:

So we might as well admit that by foreswearing the use of torture, we will probably be at a disadvantage in obtaining key information and perhaps endanger American lives here at home. (And, ironically, those who now allege that we are too rough will no doubt decry "faulty intelligence" and "incompetence" should there be another terrorist attack on an American city.) Our restraint will not ensure any better treatment for our own captured soldiers. Nor will our allies or the United Nations appreciate American forbearance. The terrorists themselves will probably treat our magnanimity with disdain, as if we were weak rather than good.

But all that is precisely the risk we must take in supporting the McCain amendment — because it is a public reaffirmation of our country's ideals.

The United States can win this global war without employing torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us that we need not and will not become anything like our enemies.

The statement that we can win the war without resorting to torture is great in the abstract but, I fear, could prove lousy in practice. Like McCain, VDH would probably acknowledge the moral duty to "do what we had to do" to try and save thousands of innocent lives if ever faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario. 

Let's be clear: despite the intellectually ankle-deep platitudes offered by some on the left, no one is arguing that torture should be used widely or even considered except under rare circumstances where we have reasonable certainty to believe the information extracted could help save innocent lives.

The question is whether it would be better to pass a ban now that might improve our public image in the short term but could prove problematic to military and civilian leaders in the future if hundreds or thousands of innocent lives are at stake, or whether we should suffer the consequences of being honest and acknowledging that there are certain scenarios under which we are willing to "do what we have to do" to protect innocent American citizens. It is by no means an easy question.