I think you're over-dramatizing. If America is on the brink of moral decadence, it isn't because of water boarding. Give me a break.

Bear in mind that foreign affairs, including the waging of wars, is the field now where the executive branch has virtually no oversight. Congress doesn't even declare war anymore. So if the president lacks scruple about torture that's all she wrote, we're a country that tortures.

I don't see it as key, as I know some in military and intelligence will overstep their bounds. However, given the unusual introspection our country has, I don't believe it will ever become rampant.

First and foremost are civil liberties afforded citizens.

Second, legal immigrants.

Third, those who deserve legal immigrant status.

Our enemies abroad deserve a lower priority.

I fault Romney for not having smart enough advisors to sidestep this issue so that it does become bigger. If he can't deftly deflect that, how will he do so on a larger stage?

I'm not voting for anyone who can't take a stand on waterboarding detainees.

And now you're engaging in rhetorical demagoguery. To say, Romney lacks any scruples that the others have is dishonest. He may not express his priorities in the same manner as you would have him, but I'll wager, he's never personally been involved in one item where anybody has had the authority or option to torture. This is all rhetoric, and the civil servants do what they wish, irrespective of the lead from the top. I expect the unelected civil bureaucrats to continue whatever the hell they wish no matter what issued from on high.

and that Mormons have been key in the ongoing torture in the USA is pertinent in my mind.

Romney may not cheat on his wife, but based on what I have seen in him, I hardly see him as a paragon of principled ethics. Principled convenience and personal gain, more like it. Yes, there are many politicians that are exactly the same. That's why I respect McCain. When he says "I won't torture" I tend to believe him.

Fine, don't vote for him. But your priorities appear misplaced.

Four or five, enemy combatants versus 300 million persons' civil liberties, and you choose to decide on that basis as opposed to the more pertinent daily issues. As for me, I'd rather hear what people have to say about immigration, or tax relief, or matters potentially affecting me.

I'd prefer somebody who reserves judgment until he knows the facts of something far removed. Of course, since it involves so few persons, he should probably say, "yeah, I'll stop it," because he won't win votes by continuing it. However, it doesn't sound pragmatic nor rational to become emotional about the issue which will not impact me, my neighbors, the citizens of my country, legal immigrants or those who may become legal immigrants. When viewed in relationship to the magnitude of the impact, I don't see its relevance. Yes I'm for civil liberties and fair treatment, and I would become strident in protection of those constitutional rights, but these limited persons will never appreciate the protections nor thank you or me for them. In short, you're emotional about something that will never benefit our country.

The slide into Putin-style democracy doesn't happen suddenly. It's gradual. And it's done in the name of security from outsiders.

He that can hear, let him hear.

I don't. Once he took public office, I ceased believing his words. There is no benefit to me, to believe either one of them as this is not a moral battle, but a rhetorical battle, and a large number of national politicians just engage in rhetorical battles, private lives not withstanding.

McCain's staked his area, feels it creates a moral high ground and is fighting for it like a seasoned military commander. Once you've staked what others perceive is right you claim it and fight like no tomorrow. That's all that's going here, and for you to believe the rhetoric shows naivety of the process and its participants.

Rhetorically, you're learning from the best, but actions of limited scope not involving our citizens, our legal immigrants or even those illegal immigrants who are resident here, are not likely to be extended to combatants from the battle field. Again, I would recommend a procedure which is offensive to the public sensibilities not be performed. There is no benefit and there's a political harm to be incurred.