![]() |
|
||
|
McCain Votes Against Torture BanPosted on Feb 14, 2008
Sen. John McCain has established himself as an outspoken critic of torture, which makes his vote Wednesday against the Feinstein Amendment, which would set limits on the types of interrogation techniques used by American intelligence agencies, all the more puzzling—or, in the case of The Atlantic columnist Andrew Sullivan, heartbreaking.
Advertisement Previous item: Miers and Bolten in Hot Water Over Attorney Firings Next item: The Ugly Side of Superdelegates Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By Pacrat, February 15, 2008 at 9:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
McCain (Yes, I am a genuine war hero), but I approved of the torture I received and deserved and so do the people we are detaining without justice of even the most primitive kind. Yes, I volunteer to be waterboarded, stripped, abused, caged again, and forced to go sleepless and all the other fun things I enjoyed as a POW just because I want to be the president of a free country.
Report thisBy lawlessone, February 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Where does Bush find all the sociopaths to do the torturing; i.e. those who admit they would never want to be subject to enhanced interrogation themselves, but seek opportunities to inflict torture others? Does the scum of the earth simply tend to gravitate toward him like the Nazis did toward Hitler or does he have an in-Human Resources manager who actively recruits them? Are the Torquemadas he hires formally taught to be that way or are they born depraved? Are they mostly self described Christians or atheists? What went wrong in their upbringing and how were they unable to develop or unable to keep a moral code? Are they sickos who relish the sense of power that bringing pain to others apparently can supply or is it the addictive oxytocins or dorphamines or other brain jollies they get out of it? Are they paranoid schizophrenias assuming everyone they torture must deserve it? Are they closet sadists? Or, are they just utterly delusional, thinking what they are doing is actually somehow saving Civilization?
Report thisBy lawlessone, February 15, 2008 at 4:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Republican election strategy so far this century has primarily been an attempt to frighten us.
Theyve succeeded with me. Im totally frightened theyll ever gain power again. Im terrified about what they lust after, how theyll grab it and what else theyll wreck getting it.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, February 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm #
I was not talking about torture I was talking about forture and old Viet Namese method of Rice deprivation.Torture is fine it is forture I am against.That damned media misquoting me again.My Friends on the straigt talking express the problem is not my message it is the liberal establishment media purposely misstating it.The old Saturday Night skit with Gilda Radner perfectly encapsulizes Mccains stance on torture.Forget about it.
Report thisBy jcbrap, February 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm #
The Republican party should simply be renamed the Hypocritic party. That at least would be truth in labelling. Say one thing, do the exact opposite, that’s their moto.
Lie, cheat, steal, it doesn’t seem to matter to them as long as they get to remain in power.
It’s the accountability stupid!
Report thisBy Jim Yell, February 15, 2008 at 12:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
For a brief shinning moment, some years ago now, I thought that McCain might be McAble if Hillary should get the candidacy from the Democratic party. Is he suffering from Stockholm disease? He started licking the boots of Bush/Cheney after making a brave start as a conterbalance to Bush/Cheney gangsterism, but he must have developed a taste for boot leather.
Sad———-
Report thisBy dammit, February 15, 2008 at 11:58 am #
“I was against torture, (when it was me) before I voted for it, (when it could get me nominated).”
Report thisBy Johnny Smith, February 15, 2008 at 11:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Also, can’t you just imagine the reaction to the McCain “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” song played on political ads to an American public that overwhelmingly wants us out of Iraq?
Report thisBy jatihoon, February 15, 2008 at 10:10 am #
John MacCain is confused, as a child he had a problem wetting his bed, hence he is against water bedding, not waterboarding.
Report thisBy jatihoon, February 15, 2008 at 9:53 am #
He is suffering from OLD-Timer, disease.
Report thisBy kath cantarella, February 15, 2008 at 4:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
but he just talks. Tosser.
Report thisBy cyrena, February 15, 2008 at 4:32 am #
Humm, a couple of thoughts here
but Senator McCain voted against it, presumably because he wishes that the CIA be permitted to continue the use of other of its enhanced techniques, apart from waterboarding.
Its very possible that there is another issue at hand, besides the wishes of McCain that the CIA be permitted to continue the use of other torture methods. (this enhanced techniques is simply Cheneys lawyers language). I agree that it is definitely POLITICS, but I suspect the reason is far more frightening to Cheneys cabal, as well as his secret police (the CIA). In reality, ALL of these people will be (and of course they SHOULD BE) held accountable in a criminal court of law, FOR HAVING ALREADY COMMITTED THESE ILLEGALITIES.
In my own opinion, thats why they (mostly Cheney) have argued so fiercely against ANY legislation that would limit the use of any of these techniques. Remember the last anti-torture bill that McCain himself initiated. (I think it was the Detainee Act or something close). It had most of these same elements, and it was no different than other legislation, which basically only PROHIBITS what is ALREADY prohibited by International and domestic law.
However, just like the spying that they did first, and then tried to make legal after the fact, (and they have) any anti-torture legislation now, that specifically names waterboarding, (as well as these other things that have always been illegal) will make them accountable by domestic law. And, while its unlikely that would happen while they are still in office, and still exercising this absolute power of exception, and power to ignore the laws, that wont necessarily carry them through, after they leave.
So, any legislation that makes this illegal, also makes them criminally accountable for having ALREADY engaged in this activity, and that includes the entire chain of command, from the ones who ordered it, to the ones who carried it out.
And what does that do to their cases against the alleged 9/11 perpetrators, when the ONLY corroboration to the official 9/11 tale, was obtained under these illegal methods of torture? Even in the kangaroo court system they have cooked up for them, this is simply not admissible evidence. It shouldnt be anyway, but this is evidence obtained in the commission of a crime, (torture/waterboarding) and in addition to the fact that we KNOW torture not only DOESNT work in obtaining reliable information, its also criminal. So, how does one judge that information, even in a kangaroo court, with the eyes of the world upon you?
I simply cannot see any explanation for this except politics - that McCain feels the need to appease the Republican far right at this point in time, and, tragically, the right to torture has now become a litmus test of “conservative” orthodoxy.
Well yeah, this is part of it as well. Still, this legislation would open the door for legal criminal proceedings (on the domestic front) against all who have so far engaged in these illegal actions. If McCain hadnt considered that little detail before, theres no doubt hes been reminded by his party leaders.
As a reminder, one of the MAIN advisors to the Hillary Campaign is Alan Dershowitz, and he has vehemently crusaded to make these tactics of torture LEGAL. So, Hillary would be inclined to vote against it as well, if it didnt make her look bad in the eyes of those paying attention. AND, shes not shown any indication that any of the current criminals should be held accountable if she were elected for ANY of their crimes. Because she WOULDNT! (hold them accountable).
All of that said, its political, but more than political. Its also about accountability to the rule of law, and these people have already engaged in so much criminal behavior, that unless theyve got their bags packed and ready for the ultimate escape, their done for, if this legislation were to pass.
Report thisBy RAE, February 15, 2008 at 2:19 am #
A vote for McCain is a vote for same-old, same-old politics… lies, more lies and lies to cover up the lies… and pretend it’s all truth!
I agree with Maani… just keep it up, John. You’re doing more to get Obama elected President than Obama is!
Report thisBy Maani, February 15, 2008 at 1:49 am #
Right on, John! Keep piling up the fodder for the Democratic cannons. Staying in Iraq for “100 years” despite the fact that 70% of America wants out NOW, despite the surge; making the Bush tax cuts permanent; bringing back Reaganomics; voting against the POW bill; voting against the torture bill.
You’re doing a great job of winning this election for us. So, keep up the good work!
Peace.
Report this