Catholics, torture, voting, communion

With respect to the issues raised by Elizabeth Brown, and posted by Steve S. . . .   Elizabeth asks:

[W]hy are the Catholic bishops and others not making the case that to support a politician precisely because he or she will support the use of torture . . . would place the Catholic outside of Communion with the Church and they should not present themselves to receive the Eucharist.

I would have thought it was noncontroversially the case that a Catholic may not "support a politician precisely because he or she will support the use of torture[.]"  (If only it were so obvious to our fellow citizens that a Catholic "may not support a politician precisely [because he or she will support abortion rights]"!)  I wonder, though -- is there really any evidence that any meaningful number of Catholics (or, for that matter, of Americans) would "support a politicians precisely because he or she will support the use of torture" (my italics), keeping in mind that to support, say, detention of suspected enemy combatants is not necessarily to support "tortur[ing]" them?  Elizabeth says that "some polls indicate that a significant number of American Catholics support the use of torture by our government."  Can anyone provide links to these polls indicating that, in fact, "a significant number of American Catholics support the use of [what they regard as] torture by our government" (in anything other than the mythical "ticking time-bomb" hypothetical)?

(To be clear:  I agree with Elizabeth that the recent display of "tougher-than-thou-on-detainees" by the GOP presidential candidates was unedifying, and I share what I take to be her discomfort with the reach of some of the Administration's executive-power claims.  And -- this should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway -- that I regard "torture", even of the worst, and even in the most desperate circumstances, as immoral.  It should also go without saying, though, that to believe detained enemy combatants need not be interrogated, charged, and tried in the manner employed in American criminal trials, or that the Executive has the power to identify and detain such combatants, is not to endorse "torture.")

UPDATE:  On the other hand, read this post, at Vox Nova, on torture and Justice Scalia's recent remarks about "absolutes" and Jack Bauer.  (The post includes a link to a survey -- the results of which seem troubling -- of members of the armed services in Iraq regarding treatment of non-combatants and interrogation.)