McCain was not tortured

[anitram]

Here.

In all the discussion of John McCain's recently recovered memory of a religious epiphany in Vietnam, one thing has been missing. The torture that was deployed against McCain emerges in all the various accounts. It involved sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, long-time standing, and beating. Sound familiar?

According to the Bush administration's definition of torture, McCain was therefore not tortured.

Cheney denies that McCain was tortured; as does Bush. So do John Yoo and David Addington and George Tenet. In the one indisputably authentic version of the story of a Vietnamese guard showing compassion, McCain talks of the agony of long-time standing. A quarter century later, Don Rumsfeld was putting his signature to memos lengthening the agony of "long-time standing" that victims of Bush's torture regime would have to endure. These torture techniques are, according to the president of the United States, merely "enhanced interrogation."

No war crimes were committed against McCain. And the techniques used are, according to the president, tools to extract accurate information.

[Irvine511]

i alluded to this the other day in another thread.

clearly, not tortured. not at all. he was merely the subject of enhanced interrogation techniques.

McCain made up the cross-in-the-dirt story as well. to pander to the credulous.

who would have thought that John McCain, a prisoner of war, would be capable of such things.

including hiring the Rove team after he said that Rove deserved a special place in hell for what they did to him in South Carolina in 2000.



i forgot. John McCain is a Maverick who only gives us Straight Talk and won't surrender until we've won.

[BVS]

He had to know this was going to kick him in the ass someday...

Straight Talk my ass.

[nathan1977]

Uh, didn't McCain decry Bush's fuzzy redefinition of torture?

[deep]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Uh, didn't McCain decry Bush's fuzzy redefinition of torture?

yes,


all along McCain has fought the Bush Admin on this, would this be a "maverick" episode?
and a harsh critic of Gonzales, Rumsfeld


there are many reasons why the Bush 3 label for McCain is just plain silly.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by deep

there are many reasons why the Bush 3 label for McCain is just plain silly.

Perhaps, but the fact that he wishes to continue the war and continue pandering to the religious right on faith/moral issues(read: abortion, stem-cell research, prayer, etc), not to mention the fact that he has hired Karl Rove(after saying that there was a special place in hell for him after what happened in South Carolina in 2000) all outweigh any of the reasons why it won't be a 'Bush 3' term.

[anitram]

I didn't post that to criticize McCain, but to illustrate the sheer idiocy of the Bush Administration regarding torture.

I would be interested in seeing some of the posters here who agreed with Bush's interpretation of torture comment on this.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by anitram

I didn't post that to criticize McCain, but to illustrate the sheer idiocy of the Bush Administration regarding torture.

I would be interested in seeing some of the posters here who agreed with Bush's interpretation of torture comment on this.

Sadly, it wasn't idiocy that led to this interpretation of torture. It was the desire to justify/legitimize the administration's desire to torture(really torture) anyone who they deemed to even maybe perhaps have some information about terrorism, as part of the neo-fascist Christian state regime they wish to turn the US into.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Uh, didn't McCain decry Bush's fuzzy redefinition of torture?

the McCain-sponsored Military Commissions Act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment and treatment that "shocks the conscience." however, it never makes specific which techniques meet that description, and Mukasey has argued that waterboarding, could, under some cricumstances, *not* "shock the conscience." in addition, in february of this year, McCain voted against restricting interrogation techniques to those under the Army Field Manual. McCain has distinguished himself by voting against waterboarding, but he's voted to allow the army to use whatever techniques it sees acceptable -- and those, as approved by Bush, involve many of the same "enhanced" techniques used against him by the Viet Cong.

Senate OKs limits on interrogations

The measure, which would ban the CIA’s use of waterboarding, is expected to be vetoed by Bush.

February 14, 2008 in print edition A-12

In a sharp rebuke to the White House, the Senate passed legislation Wednesday that would impose sweeping new restrictions on interrogation methods used by the CIA and ban a widely condemned technique known as waterboarding, in which a prisoner is made to feel he is drowning.

President Bush is expected to veto the bill, which would outlaw an array of coercive interrogation tactics that U.S. allies have denounced but the administration has said are crucial to prevent terrorist attacks.

The measure, already approved in the House, would require the CIA to abide by strict interrogation guidelines adopted by the Army after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

Because of the veto threat, the Senate vote was seen in some ways as a political showdown over one of the most divisive issues in the country’s response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Last week, the CIA confirmed it had used waterboarding, and the White House said the technique could be authorized again – reigniting a controversy over human rights and national security.

The debate has ties to two other sensitive issues: the Bush administration’s decision this week to seek the death penalty in military commission trials for six alleged Sept. 11 plotters, and its push for congressional approval of expanded electronic surveillance in a measure that gives immunity to phone companies for their roles in past spying. The Senate passed such a bill this week, and House members are debating whether to go along.

Many Democratic lawmakers have denounced waterboarding as a form of torture that has undermined U.S. moral standing in the world.

“To me, this is really a very big day,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), sponsor of the provision that would limit interrogation methods. “Torture is out.”

But leading Republicans – as well as conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia – have defended the legality of what the CIA refers to as “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

The decision by Republicans to allow a vote on the measure – forgoing procedural moves that could have blocked it from coming to the floor – suggested that party leaders saw political advantage in setting up a presidential veto. The bill was approved 51 to 45 in the Senate after passing the House in December, 222 to 199. Neither margin would be sufficient to override a veto.

Underscoring the complexity of the political currents, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumed GOP nominee for president and a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, voted against the measure. McCain led earlier efforts in the Senate to ban cruel treatment of prisoners, and has denounced waterboarding in presidential debates. But preserving the CIA’s ability to employ so-called enhanced interrogation methods has broad support in the party’s conservative base.

In a statement, McCain explained his vote against the measure by saying he considers waterboarding illegal under existing U.S. law but he does not want to bind U.S. intelligence officers with restrictions designed for the military.

“I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values,” McCain said.

[mobvok]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Uh, didn't McCain decry Bush's fuzzy redefinition of torture?

It depends.

Just last year he said:

Link

“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,” said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here.

“People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”

McCain praises the Army Field Manual, WRT interrogations:

Link

I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about.

The Democrats tried to pass a bill this year that would have enforced the Army Field Manual across all interrogations, barring the CIA from waterboarding and other awful techniques. When it came time to vote his principles though, McCain failed:

Link

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.

Link

Furthermore, what are these “additional techniques” outside the Field Manual that McCain thinks the CIA needs? Marty Lederman noted that the CIA can currently use “stress positions, hypothermia, threats to the detainee and his family, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation.”

Strong principles.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by anitram

I would be interested in seeing some of the posters here who agreed with Bush's interpretation of torture comment on this.

As would I. Something tells me no one's going to step up to the plate, though.

[INDY500]

John McCain was tortured -- but he was one of the lucky ones.



Guantanamo Bay = Hanoi Hilton

Goodluck with that this Fall.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

John McCain was tortured -- but he was one of the lucky ones.

Do you then disagree with the Bush administration's interpretation of torture?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

John McCain was tortured --

So who's the liar? Bush or McCain?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Uh, didn't McCain decry Bush's fuzzy redefinition of torture?

At one time, but then he went spineless...

[Dreadsox]

I am really proud of this thread. I mean how often is it that we get such an opportunity for intelligent discussion... and the opportunity to bash two republicans at once.....

Oh my, I think I just felt a twitch in my pants....so exciting.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

John McCain was tortured -- but he was one of the lucky ones.

i quite agree. he was tortured.

you should email your president and tell him.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Dreadsox

I am really proud of this thread. I mean how often is it that we get such an opportunity for intelligent discussion... and the opportunity to bash two republicans at once.....

Oh my, I think I just felt a twitch in my pants....so exciting.

being totally honest here, i can't think of a more pressing issue than torture and what has happened to the standards of conduct by our military and how much this has been intentionally eroded over the past 8 years. and, in fact, i think it's quite dramatically ironic that the Republican nominee was himself tortured by the Viet Cong with the very same techniques -- forced standing, stress positions, hypothermia, sleep deprivation, denial of medical treatment -- that have now been used by US soldiers in GitMo and beyond.

yes, there's a degree of drama in here, but the overall point is, i think , quite profound. and important.

[Boston01]

I can think of a number of more pressing issues than torture. I happened to be far more concerned about the mass murder of individuals that occurs on a daily basis as the free world stands by and does nothing. I am sorry if that offends anyone, but it's all about scale. Every person has a right to life, but it is beyond the scope of humanity to resolve every issue. If you believe otherwise, I think you are overly idealistic.

I am not here to bash anyone's beliefs, but perspective is everything. I am certainly not here to advocate or defend torture or those who would commit acts that do not appropriately represent the United States, or any other nation for that matter.

It does seem to me that there are those who would rather we place those we have taken into custody into holding and not interrogate or otherwise attempt, by any means, to gather intelligence from them. That is not OK with me. It is not OK with me that more soldiers or innocent civilians would die by failing to pursue such information. I do agree that there have to be limits, but fundamentally this is a security issue.

Just by reading these forums there seem to be a lot of people who do not believe that the world is a closed system and there are in fact people who want you, me and every member of our families dead just because we live in a certain demographic or believe that we should have the right to post in forums such as this.

As far as the standards of conduct in our military, those men and women are following orders, for the most part. Those who commit illegal acts are criminals, but that is certainly not the majority or even any significant minority of those serving. The UCMJ provides for their punishment of those who do commit such crimes.

I think debate on any subject is healthy, but broad generalizations about our military, elected officials or any group is exactly what feeds sectarianism, and ultimately conflict. Everywhere forum I read seems to be an 'us and them' mentality. If that trend continues, we are all doomed.

As a personal statement, for all the criticism of John McCain and the military, I suggest anyone here experience some of the things they have experienced for one day. It may be fair to criticize policy, but personal attacks on people who would give their life to defend you is absolutely unacceptable to me.

[Irvine511]

what do we fight for if not to preserve our way of life, which involves treating human beings -- even the lowest of the low -- to basic standards of dignity? who are we if we ourselves cannot stick to basic standards of law? who do we become if we use the techniques of those who've been relegated to the dustbin of history (Pol Pot, the Viet Cong, the Stalinists, the Stasi)?

what kind of society would we live in if we are to accept everything and anything the military does and view any sort of criticism as "unacceptable"?

this is called a junta. this is life in Myanmar/Burma. this is what the West and the US is supposed to be about. this is what we have to defend -- our way of life.

and the torture debate gets to the absolute heart of this.

and there's also the small matter of the fact that torture doesn't work. it gets you bad information. it's a waste of time and resources.