McCain's red shift on torture
On the unpopular war with Iraq, Sen. John McCain says he is "prepared to sacrifice whatever was necessary in order to stand up for what I believe in." Torture is pretty unpopular, so you'd think it'd be a helluva lot easier for the former POW to stick to his guns on the issue.
And you'd be wrong:
It's a mighty fine line to walk. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) opposes torture. But when the Senate held a vote yesterday that would effectively prevent the CIA from employing torture by restricting interrogation techniques to those under the Army Field Manual, he voted against it ...
But by voting against the bill, McCain is saying that the CIA should have a free hand to employ techniques along these lines. At the same time, he stresses that the 2006 Detainee Treatment Act, the bill he himself sponsored, prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment and treatment that "shocks the conscience." He hasn't said which of the techniques listed above meet that description. But he trusts that the Justice Department and CIA will arrive at a "good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible."
Of course, all candidates pander, and it's expected that much of what anyone running for president does is tinged with cynicism. Indeed, McCain needs to endear himself to the GOP's conservative base fast. But as my former boss Matt Welch points out in his book, McCain has spent practically his entire political career carefully crafting his image of honor and integrity. And this is torture, for crying out loud -- something which McCain himself endured for more than five years in Vietnam.
With McCain's most recent flip-flop, perhaps it'll become clear how genuine his aura of honor and integrity is.
This is the same guy who if elected president states that he will continue to subject our American service men and women to death and dismemberment in Iraq for the next 100 years. Do we really need to know anything more abolut this guy in order to not vote for him?
Posted by: Jim Jones | February 14, 2008 at 02:28 PM
It will be interesting to see in the coming months how McCain manages to pander to both the moderate and extreme elements of his party. It will take some 'splaining to show how you are both for AND against torture.
Sadly, the right wingers' best argument for torture is to interject a "24" like scenario where 'the bomb' is somewhere in LA and its going off in 2 hours and we got this guy who can tell us where it is. Though it is easy to create what-if, doomsday scenarios, we Americans must decide if our country is going to abide by our previous domestic and international commitments that explicitly ban torture. Doomsday scenarios notwithstanding.
Posted by: Misswest | February 14, 2008 at 03:41 PM
McCain is one of three possible people expected to be the next president. He is known for being a P.O.W.
Another person back in the news is Jane Fonda,
She is known for choosing poor words.
........At least she is not still cheering for the people who want to destroy us.!
Posted by: jack ford | February 14, 2008 at 09:39 PM
As a fellow Naval Academy graduate of McCain's, his newfound support for torture is the last straw for me--I will sit out this election or vote Libertarian.
NO HONOR=NO VOTE!
Posted by: JP | February 14, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Misswest,
I agree, and it would be a horrible signal to the world if America continued to hesitate calling some of the CIA practices torture.
Regarding the ticking bomb scenario, check out the interview with Tom Farer (click on my name, video available).
How can you stand for freedom, democracy and the rule of law if torture is accepted? Only on "evil" people... as determined exclusively by the president, of course. And please be grateful if we let you out of Guantanamo after five years without a charge, because we could have been harder on you -- "tough on terrorism" at its best.
Posted by: R. Flinshack | February 15, 2008 at 01:37 AM
R. Finshack
Thanks for the link -- interesting interview. Couldn't agree more. When I hear the specious argument in favor of torture I am reminded of an incident I saw on TV during Hurricane Katrina. It showed desparate people stealing food from a Wal-Mart and wading through knee-deep water. In this case, I don't think people should be prosecuted for stealing, but does that mean we should re-write the law to say that stealing is okay. No. Laws are not made for exceptios, and I think the ticking bomb scenario would be considered just that -- an exception.
Changing long-standing precedents to accommodate exceptions is pure folly and practicing torture undermines the fundamental principles of a democratic society.
Posted by: Misswest | February 16, 2008 at 09:59 PM
This is a man of flawed integrity.......I presume he lost his soul during his 25 year service in Washington D.C. where ones integrity can be bought and sold.
Posted by: Vectorpedia (Rick) | February 22, 2008 at 04:10 PM
Like integrity...only different.
Posted by: H | February 23, 2008 at 06:11 PM
You know, I could defend and aquit someone charged with breaking the law and torturing a detainee when a 24 type scenario was the mitigation. I cannot defend the leaders who make torture a policy without anything other than hypothetical rationales as their excuse. There's a fundamental difference between a situational decision to save lives by denying human rights temporarily and a policy of denying human rights to detainees in perpetuity as a way of absolving your administration of wrongdoing. Its "the ends justify the means" versus "the ends are the means" philosophical debate in real life.
Posted by: John | February 24, 2008 at 05:37 PM