I chuckle sometimes at “no-brainer” legislation, bills put forth that no lawmaker in his or her right mind would oppose. No-brainer legislation is often symbolic, condemning a dastardly deed or praising heroism, often to allow politicians to trumpet the obvious to voters. Yet some no-brainer legislation is dead serious.

Senator John McCain’s amendment to prohibit “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of POWs struck me as a classic no-brainer. What foolish politician would risk being perceived as pro-torture, arguably the most reprehensible aspect of the human condition? No creature on earth, besides humans, purposefully inflicts suffering on another creature. The hottest recesses of hell are reserved for torturers.

Surely every Senator would steer clear of any notions of condoning torture. Consider the credibility of McCain who was often tortured during his 5 1/2 year imprisonment in North Vietnam. Or the mad scramble after Abu Ghraib came to light. Military leaders and the White House were desperate to show that renegade underlings, not the powers-that-be, committed the improprieties. I figured McCain’s amendment would be a no-brainer.

Man was I wrong. In spite of a bipartisan display rarely seen in these acrimonious times — 90 Senators voted in favor of creating limits on the interrogation of prisoners — nine Senators opposed, including Colorado’s own Wayne Allard. What was he thinking?

Let’s set aside the moral and ethical issue for a moment and think practicalities. Torturing prisoners is a bad idea. First, it increases the likelihood that a captured US soldier would receive reciprocal treatment. Second, military intelligence officials have gone on record saying that torture simply doesn’t work. A prisoner in pain or who’s led to believe he is about to be executed will say anything. Third, torture undermines America’s credibility in the world, which McCain explained in his November 21 Newsweek article: “Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes.” Torture obstructs the international cooperation that America needs. Just notice how much of Condoleezza Rice’s European trip this week has been spent defending US detainee tactics.

But there’s another reason: America is better than that. Much of my understanding of how our country is better came through history lessons, especially of World War II. We were the good guys. The bad guys starved and executed prisoners, conducted cruel medical experiments, and marched thousands from Bataan to their deaths. My grandfather was then an Army chaplain serving near German POWs where he got to know a number of them. Imprisoned for the duration, for sure, but they were housed, clothed, fed and generally treated decently.

Decency characterizes American values. It’s just plain decent to let people speak their minds, pray to any God, and be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Too many societies around the world lack such decency. But lately, with abuses at Abu Ghraib and US leaders condoning torture, we blur that once clear delineation between the good and bad guys. Granted, such notions of America may seem quaint and simplistic during these dangerous times. But we will lose the moral high ground in the fight against terrorism if our victory requires terror tactics.

I suspect that Senator Allard is a decent person with respect for American decency. But torture is indecent. For him and for any American to proclaim to the world the superiority of American values, there’s no place for torture. That is a no-brainer.