John McCain votes in favour of torture, shows hypocritical side

[CptStern]

Senate Passes Interrogation Ban

The Senate voted 51 to 45 on Wednesday afternoon to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency against high-level terrorism suspects.

Senate Republicans generally opposed the bill, but several of them also did not want to cast a vote that could be construed as supporting torture, and so were relying on President Bush to make good on a threat to veto legislation limiting C.I.A. interrogation techniques.

All the ?no? votes were cast by Republicans, except for those of Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska. Five Republicans and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, voted ?yes.?

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted ?no? on Wednesday afternoon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/w...c4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

 

[Tyguy]

not surprising really...he'll change his mind in a few weeks, and then revert back to his original stance, depending on the severity it causes his campaign.

 

[No Limit]

Looks like the streight talk express is really desperate for support from the bat shit crazy end of the republican party.

 

[Tyguy]

he's also in favor of mandatory jail time for any drug related offense

 

[CptStern]

it just invalidates everything he's ever said about torture ..which is especially damaging because he himself was tortured and was a very vocal voice against the use of torture ...looks like pretty much everyone has a price, for McCain it's the oval office

 

[Tyguy]

he really is a horrible choice to lead the country. Id rather Obama get elected, even with driver licenses for illegal immigrants...but thats another story

 

[Raziaar]

Wow... that was one of the things I respected him for, his fierce opposition to anything torture related.

What an asshole.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I now support Huckadoodle!
Christian presidents ftw!

 

[delusional]

Huckabee '08!

How dare you! I'd rather have you vote John McCain.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I like how republicans opposed the bill but didn't want to be seen as 'excusing torture'.

Like that's what you've been doing for years and are still doing if you oppose the bill?

 

[mastag]

I now support Huckadoodle!
Christian presidents ftw!

Figures.

 

[Dan]

I bet the Vietnamese got him to change his opinion of it while they had him in their POW camps.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Politician changes mind on key issue: Mr-Fusion not bloody surprised

 

[Absinthe]

He just addressed this on Larry King, but I didn't understand any of it.

 

[Kadayi]

Well I guess clearly he's in favour of it when it's not him being tortured. Also why is it he is labelled as a war hero? What's so heroic about napalming a bunch of villages exactly?

 

[Absinthe]

Well I guess clearly he's in favour of it when it's not him being tortured. Also why is it he is labelled as a war hero? What's so heroic about napalming a bunch of villages exactly?

More likely currying favor with his splintered party. Seems he'll have to toe the line if hardcore conservatives are going to vote for him.

But I'm not inclined to question his military credentials. "War hero" might be a romanticized term, but he had a strong sense of honor and military duty, regardless of how skewed or misappropriated they became during Vietnam. His involvement in napalm bombings (which he was not alone in) are a shame, but that was policy from Washington. In any case, he is considered a hero because he fought for his country and his steadfast endurance through a five-year POW internment (counting one attempted suicide and likely developing PTSD). Civilian deaths were unfortunate. But Vietnam was the quagmire of that time and a lot of people got their hands dirty from simply being a part of it.

Some exceptions aside, I see little point in blaming individual military personnel who are trained and instilled with an adherence to chain of command, even if their actions did involve questionable methods. Belittling his record, even with all its possible flaws, smacks of when people on this board called John Kerry a war criminal because of his service. It's your choice to view him as a hero or not, but different people have varying opinions on that conflict and its participants. It's been over 30 years since the mess and the US peoples' view of its veterans has softened. McCain has since shaken hands and even hugged his former captors, some of which were responsible for the torture and deaths of numerous US troops. And he was a strong advocate for normalizing relations with Vietnam. The hatchet has been buried and I think most people accord respect to anybody who was subject to the war, as it's seen a lot more as a tragedy.

 

[The Monkey]

I actually likes and respected McCain more than any other of the republicans. Shame this had to happen.

 

[lame-o]

I think that's perfectly alright that he voted against getting rid of waterboarding, it's not like American torture is anything serious anyways lol. It is, in fact, one of the most humane nations in the world.

I wonder what the Russians are doing to their prisoners right now? Not even prisoners, more like people who are disagreeable.

 

[CptStern]

I think that's perfectly alright that he voted against getting rid of waterboarding, it's not like American torture is anything serious anyways lol. It is, in fact, one of the most humane nations in the world.

I wonder what the Russians are doing to their prisoners right now? Not even prisoners, more like people who are disagreeable.

why stop at the russians? al qaeda torture methods are far more "serious" as you put it ..are you really comparing the US to groups that use torture to get their way as if that somehow justifies it's use? ..ironic that you held up being "humane" and "torture" in the same light ..wouldnt that pretty much disprove your point? torture is the opposite of being humane I thought that was painfully obvious to anyone who's given it more than a seconds thought

is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure

real "humane"

Waterboarding has been used in interrogations at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition

then it MUST be ok

During World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, as well the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.

you're keeping fine company ..Nazis and Imperialistic Japan ..knnown for their extremely humane treatment of prisoners



but why take wikis word for it, why not listen to first hand experiences:

The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. In spite of myself, the fingers of both my hands shook uncontrollably. "That's it! He's going to talk," said a voice.

The water stopped running and they took away the rag. I was able to breathe. In the gloom, I saw the lieutenants and the captain, who, with a cigarette between his lips, was hitting my stomach with his fist to make me throw out the water I had swallowed

but lets look at it from a legal stand point:

All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty. (The treaty states "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.") Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are bound to Article 5, which states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

seems pretty clear, especially since the US is a signatory member of the UN



but torture is ok because you say it is, seems perfectly logical to me

 

[lame-o]

Wow, why are all the new age people such pussies? Let's face it, none of your enemies are going to tell you anything you want to know unless you torture them. And even those people who are imprisoned and tortured in the US seem to get fatter while they're there. And considering the fact that waterboarding leaves no permanent injuries and is relatively safe, I think it's probably one of the most soft tortures. It works too as time has told.

Basically, without torture, interrogation would be nearly impossible. All I'm saying is keep it real.

You should be ****ing glad that at least the US government TELLS its people about what it does.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Wow, why are all the new age people such pussies? Let's face it, none of your enemies are going to tell you anything you want to know unless you torture them.

Presumably you're unfamiliar in any capacity with the range of HUMINT strategies.

Guess what: despite your claims that torture 'works', such methods tends to be barely useful, because they turn prisoners/intelligence sources into one-time expandable resources that expire after use, because they tend to produce false confessions, and because they can even incriminate innocent people. Wikipedia cites various sources to the contrary and even goes so far as to say that "no one has come up with a single documented example of lives saved thanks to torture". Where are YOUR citations?

You should be ****ing glad that at least the US government TELLS its people about what it does.

Did it tell you it was spying on you?

 

[repiV]

There's a distinct difference between the treatment of legitimate POWs and the treatment of terrorists and warlords and such.
In fact, under the Geneva Convention, the only right a non-uniformed combatant has is to summary execution in the field.

They can do what the **** they like to the bastards as far as I'm concerned, especially if it yields intelligence benefits - to suggest they deserve the same respect and treatment as enemy military is absurd.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Torture might be defensible if it was applied only to proven enemy combatants, but it's not. Detainees of Guantanamo do not get trials and do not even get the privelege of charges. So there's absolutely no reliable method for determining that they are really enemy combatants. Don't give us any "they wouldn't get captured if they weren't" bullshit. Of all the detainees, plenty have been released, while of the others only a tiny fraction have been charged. If these people are all genuine threats then I guess the administration is criminally negligent. And that's what a prison in public knowledge does; what about the acknowledged but veiled secret prisons the US apparently maintains around the world?

The context in which we are discussing torture - ie CIA secret prisons, gitmo, etc - means we are not discussing its use in an isolated fashion but rather discussing its use against suspects. 'Suspect' is a legal function quite distinct from 'accused' or 'prisoner'.

One might also note that the US has a history of constituting waterboarding and torture as war crimes. This ban should not really be necessary. Its function is to stop abuses that are already happening and manifesting in a certain set of material circumstances, not to provoke a reasoned debate in a vacuum about the acceptability of 'legitimate' torture (if such a thing exists).

In any case, the fact remains that the "intelligence benefits" of the techniques seem minimal.

 

[repiV]

Torture might be defensible if it was applied only to proven enemy combatants, but it's not. Detainees of Guantanamo do not get trials and do not even get the privelege of charges. So there's absolutely no reliable method for determining that they are really enemy combatants. Don't give us any "they wouldn't get captured if they weren't" bullshit. Of all the detainees, plenty have been released, while of the others only a tiny fraction have been charged. If these people are all genuine threats then I guess the administration is criminally negligent. And that's what a prison in public knowledge does; what about the acknowledged but veiled secret prisons the US apparently maintains around the world?

The context in which we are discussing torture - ie CIA secret prisons, gitmo, etc - means we are not discussing its use in an isolated fashion but rather discussing its use against suspects. 'Suspect' is a legal function quite distinct from 'accused' or 'prisoner'.

One might also note that the US has a history of constituting waterboarding and torture as war crimes. This ban should not really be necessary. Its function is to stop abuses that are already happening and manifesting in a certain set of material circumstances, not to provoke a reasoned debate in a vacuum about the acceptability of 'legitimate' torture (if such a thing exists).

In any case, the fact remains that the "intelligence benefits" of the techniques seem minimal.

That's a different discussion altogether.
The main argument is that known terrorists are entitled to be treated well, but that's an outright lie - and the other one is that terrorists should be treated well, which is just insulting.
If the US Army catches a fighting terrorist on the field of battle, they are perfectly within their rights to cut off all his limbs with a knife, stick a bayonet through his eye and snap his neck - or whatever other obscene acts of violence they feel like committing against him. Standard conduct when such fighters are captured on the battlefield has always been to line them up and shoot them there and then - or interrogate them. And then execute them afterwards. It's no different for captured spies, or private military operatives.

 

[Eejit]

Just because you can torture and summarily execute non-uniformed combatants doesn't mean you should.
Easter Rising anybody?

But a man who has himself been tortured agreeing with this bill... I hate politicians -.-

 

[repiV]

Just because you can torture and summarily execute non-uniformed combatants doesn't mean you should.
Easter Rising anybody?

But a man who has himself been tortured agreeing with this bill... I hate politicians -.-

It certainly doesn't mean that we should play nice with murderous Islamic extremists. Be doing the world a favour to execute them on sight.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Not that you'd ever need a trial or nothing to make doubly sure they were actually murderous Islamic extermists.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

If the US Army catches a fighting terrorist on the field of battle, they are perfectly within their rights to cut off all his limbs with a knife, stick a bayonet through his eye and snap his neck - or whatever other obscene acts of violence they feel like committing against him.

You are wrong, but I guess since Bush "legalized" every possible measure of "anti-terrorism" then it's ok.

It's ok to be wrong when you think someone is a "terrorist".

 

[repiV]

Not that you'd ever need a trial or nothing to make doubly sure they were actually murderous Islamic extermists.

If they're found armed on the field of battle, and not wearing a recognisable military uniform, you're entitled to execute them.

 

[repiV]

You are wrong, but I guess since Bush "legalized" every possible measure of "anti-terrorism" then it's ok.

No, I'm not wrong. The Geneva convention provides protection only for identifiable members of a recognised military power.

 

[Eejit]

It certainly doesn't mean that we should play nice with murderous Islamic extremists. Be doing the world a favour to execute them on sight.

You're missing my point about the Easter Rising.
Such behaviour towards them will only increase their grass-roots support and make things harder in the long run.

Britain apparently learned this the hard way during the Irish War of Independance, by your reasoning they should have treated the IRA in that way from the 60's - but if they had they would have been shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

If they're found armed on the field of battle, and not wearing a recognisable military uniform, you're entitled to execute them.

In other words, if a civilian is in their own neighborhood, they can be killed and noone will care.
Well, I'd believe that if it were not for the guy that just got life imprisonment for killing a civilian Iraqi. He was from my town.
Justice.

No, I'm not wrong. The Geneva convention provides protection only for identifiable members of a recognised military power.

See above.

 

[repiV]

You're missing my point about the Easter Rising.
Such behaviour towards them will only increase their grass-roots support and make things harder in the long run.

Britain apparently learned this the hard way during the Irish War of Independance, by your reasoning they should have treated the IRA in that way from the 60's - but if they had they would have been shooting themselves in the foot.

I was speaking from the moral and legal perspective, not the tactical one. Although I would say it's questionable whether normal human psychology would apply to Islamic extremists - it doesn't matter how well you treat them, I doubt it would stop them wanting to destroy the West.
Soldiers from everywhere around the world are just ordinary people with a uniform on, they certainly deserve to be treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions and as you say it's likely to be a tactically sound decision aswell. I imagine the same reasoning would apply to the IRA.
Religious fanatics, perhaps not so much.

 

[repiV]

In other words, if a civilian is in their own neighborhood, they can be killed and noone will care.
Well, I'd believe that if it were not for the guy that just got life imprisonment for killing a civilian Iraqi. He was from my town.
Justice.


See above.

What's killing an Iraqi civilian got to do with executing an illegal combatant caught taking up arms against a military force?

 

[Eejit]

I was speaking from the moral and legal perspective, not the tactical one. Although I would say it's questionable whether normal human psychology would apply to Islamic extremists - it doesn't matter how well you treat them, I doubt it would stop them wanting to destroy the West.

I think it does work in the same way. By acting in such a way you turn moderates into extremeists. Another N.I. parallel: Bloody Sunday was the IRA's biggest recruiting coup since the Easter Rising. It leads to polarisation of opinion, feeding previously moderate recruits to the extremeists.

The Iraqi insurgents (native to Iraq) have politics as just as big a motivation as religion anyway.

Oh and as to whether it should be legal or not? Well that's a tactical consideration too in a way

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

What's killing an Iraqi civilian got to do with executing an illegal combatant caught taking up arms against a military force?

Who is to say anyone is an illegal combatant? Who is to say who has the right to take up arms against a military force? Military forces exist to be fought against. They are not police. If foreign invaders came to my home turf I'd be shooting them, too, and luckily for me our constitution allows me to form a militia, not that we'd ever need one.

This whole thing with legality and war is absurd, anyway. You military and military sympathetic types are so ****ed in the head you'd do anything for your commanders even if it is inhumane, and probably especially so.

 

[Sulkdodds]

If they're found armed on the field of battle, and not wearing a recognisable military uniform, you're entitled to execute them.

Yet they may be civilians in the area who are defending their homes against insurgents and make a mistake. Or are defending their homes and don't know...whatever. There are a million variations of circumstances that might lead to an innocent or partially-innocent person - one who is not actually what you call a religious fanatic - appearing in suspicious circumstances. Without a trial, executing them upon capture (distinct to them being killed in a firefight) is bad.

 

[repiV]

I think it does work in the same way. By acting in such a way you turn moderates into extremeists. Another N.I. parallel: Bloody Sunday was the IRA's biggest recruiting coup since the Easter Rising. It leads to polarisation of opinion, feeding previously moderate recruits to the extremeists.

The Iraqi insurgents (native to Iraq) have politics as just as big a motivation as religion anyway.

Oh and as to whether it should be legal or not? Well that's a tactical consideration too in a way

Perhaps, but we aren't doing that in Iraq. We're actually acting in a very restrained fashion.

Who is to say anyone is an illegal combatant? Who is to say who has the right to take up arms against a military force? Military forces exist to be fought against. They are not police. If foreign invaders came to my home turf I'd be shooting them, too, and luckily for me our constitution allows me to form a militia, not that we'd ever need one.

This whole thing with legality and war is absurd, anyway. You military and military sympathetic types are so ****ed in the head you'd do anything for your commanders even if it is inhumane, and probably especially so.

Er, right. Whatever you say, crazy amateur psychologist.

The Geneva convention defines an illegal combatant - are you going to quote from it when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't?

Yet they may be civilians in the area who are defending their homes against insurgents and make a mistake. Or are defending their homes and don't know...whatever. There are a million variations of circumstances that might lead to an innocent or partially-innocent person - one who is not actually what you call a religious fanatic - appearing in suspicious circumstances. Without a trial, executing them upon capture (distinct to them being killed in a firefight) is bad.

Yes, that's potentially true - depends entirely on the circumstances. But that's a practicality point of view which is more about method than right or wrong, and not so relevant to the discussion at hand.
Most people aren't complaining that we don't have a good enough system in place to judge who is and is not a terrorist (which I would agree is true), they're complaining that we treat terrorists unfairly.
And I call bullshit on that, we give them far, FAR better treatment than we are obliged to - and we all know what happens when our soldiers get captured by these people.

 

[Godron]

I was speaking from the moral and legal perspective, not the tactical one. Although I would say it's questionable whether normal human psychology would apply to Islamic extremists - it doesn't matter how well you treat them, I doubt it would stop them wanting to destroy the West.
Soldiers from everywhere around the world are just ordinary people with a uniform on, they certainly deserve to be treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions and as you say it's likely to be a tactically sound decision aswell. I imagine the same reasoning would apply to the IRA.
Religious fanatics, perhaps not so much.

What if you capture a religious fanatical soldier, like an islamist Sunni insurgent or something, is it all right to torture them? Or did you mean only people high up in the chain of command can be interrogated? Because terrorists have a hierachical structure too, and I think suicide bombers are at the bottom of it.

 

[repiV]

What if you capture a religious fanatical soldier, like an islamist Sunni insurgent or something, is it all right to torture them? Or did you mean only people high up in the chain of command can be interrogated? Because terrorists have a hierachical structure too, and I think suicide bombers are at the bottom of it.

They're not part of a legitimate military force, so yes.