McCain says some torture justified

[Judi Lynn]

Monday, December 19, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

McCain says some torture justified
By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain, who pushed the White House to support a ban on torture, suggested Sunday that harsh treatment of a terrorism suspect who knew of an imminent attack would not violate international standards.

The Arizona Republican said legislation before Congress would establish in U.S. law the international standard banning any treatment of prisoners that "shocks the conscience."

That would include, McCain said, mock executions and "water boarding," in which a subject is made to think he is drowning.

Asked on ABC's "This Week" whether such treatment of a terrorism suspect who could reveal information that could stop a terrorist operation would shock the conscience, McCain said it would not.
(snip/...)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002691568_mccain19.html

[bluestateguy]

1. I favor torture of Scooter Libby to find out who the leaker is

[GatoLover]

31. I thought Scooter WAS the leaker!

Besides, what kind of grown man goes by the name "Scooter"???

[WhiteTara]

40. After several months of CID, I'm sure that

Libby will give up all the rest of them. The idea of water boarding Libby is an incredible visual.

[Realityhack]

51. Love your tag line. n/t

[rman]

2. how does that fit with "we do not torture"?

[0007]

4. Isn't is like.....

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal when torture is involved?

McCain is crazy!

[saigon68]

52. HE IS NUTS

He forgets how they used to tie his scrotum in knots.

[KansDem]

20. Perhaps he and Bush will compromise...

...and offer the "We do not torture much" ban...

[mark11727]

33. "...we only torture BAD GUYS..."

"...otherwise we wouldn't be torturing them."

[jon strad]

42. It's kind of like

"Thou shall not kill" but yay for the death penalty

[dietbubba]

3. Can't respect this

Its comments like this that make it tough for me to respect McCain. Take a stance and stick with it and stop giving in to the administration and pandering to the base. For someone who was a POW and tortured, you would think that he would understand that any amounth of torture, any manner of torture is unacceptable.

[Roland99]

5. McCain's been watching "24" reruns too much.

:eyes:

[chicagiana]

6. Wrong John ...

If you give them this exception, EVERY person will simply be considered a terrorist who knows of an impending attack. This is the justification that the administration ALREADY uses.

Nice bait and switch Johnny boy. You're ambition for the presidency has turned you into an ass kissing lap-dog for the Bush administration. This torture issue was the last shred of integrity I thought you had. Now your just another Republican asshat like the rest of them.

FUCK JOHN MCCAIN!!!!!!

[MadisonProgressive]

55. An ass kissing lap-dog for the Bush administration.

[Walt Starr]

7. I wonder what they have on McCain in his NSA file? n/t

[0007]

13. Never learned to fly very well!

[KansDem]

19. Do you think he was one of the targets of George Wiretap Bush?

...and his "Warrants?-We-don't-need-no-stinkin'-warrants!" domestic policy?

[EFerrari]

8. I've been waiting for this.

McCain knows, just as we all do, that torture doesn't result in good data -- I mean, above and beyond that whole morally indefensible thing.

I think this whole McCain bill has been choreographed to buffer Cheney's drooling lust for torture. To put a human, Republican face on torture. :sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

9. McCain-Bush “anti-torture” measure gives legal cover for continued abuse

McCain-Bush “anti-torture” measure gives legal cover for continued abuse

By Joe Kay and Barry Grey
17 December 2005

The agreement reached between the Bush White House and Senator John McCain on a measure ostensibly banning torture does nothing of the kind. The official disavowal of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” of alleged terrorists held by the US is a ploy to cover up Washington’s past defiance of international laws banning torture and provide a pseudo-legal cover for the continuation of the same methods.

The very fact that the US government is obliged to make a public disavowal of torture is a damning indictment of Washington’s lawless methods. The whole world knows that the US is employing torture and other illegal means, including abductions, secret prisons, imprisonment without charge or legal recourse, in the name of its global “war on terror.”

The agreement reached between the White House and McCain—a right-wing Republican senator and fervent supporter of the war in Iraq—is in the form of an amendment to the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. The amendment, as agreed on by the White House and the senator, requires that the US military treat those detained by it in accordance with the Army Field Manual. It adds that no prisoner “in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”

The Bush administration, which had previously opposed any measure proscribing the use of torture on the grounds of “national security” and the “war on terrorism,” was moved to work out a deal with McCain after the senator’s original amendment was passed last month by a lopsided margin in the Senate, and a non-binding resolution supporting the amendment was adopted by a large margin on December 14 in the House of Representatives.

The crafting of the agreed-on amendment has been accompanied by proclamations from Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States does not condone or employ torture. These are brazen lies.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/tort-d17.shtml

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

10. Typical McCain goobledygook

Did he perchance give any details as to how one could determine that the suspect in question knows about an imminent attack?

What methods did he recommend to reach that conclusion?

Thumbscrews?
The rack?
A mouthfull of leeches with a chaser of gasoline?

McCain is a dangerous man. He plays the "maverick" well, but make no mistake...he's still more politician than patriot...more party than country, and if he runs in 08 it behooves us to do all in our power to see that he's defeated.

[Enraged_Ape]

11. There are people who thought McCain's torture in Vietnam was justified

Namely the sick fucks that tortured him.

You see, John, torture is ALWAYS justifiable by torturers. There is always a good reason, as they will go to great lengths to explain to any of the rest of us that have a shred of decency and morality--who are repelled by the idea and know that it DOESN'T WORK as a tool for getting information, and that it jeopardizes our OWN troops.

McCain's as evil as the rest of these diseased bastards. Fuck him.

[LostinVA]

14. My first thought, too

So, if those who tortured him thought it was justified because he knew of an imminent attack against North Vietnam, that would be okay? Hmmm? McCain has turned into such a sycophant tool. Shame. He spits on the memory of every American soldier every tortured by their captors.

[PSPS]

12. McCain ain't playing with a full deck!

This is the Bartcop "philosophy" on torture: We never do it unless we think it's "worthwhile." I wonder if I'll live to see a time when we don't have these seriously disturbed sadistic psychopaths in positions of power.

[gratuitous]

32. Spot on

Because one exception to torture slowly (or quickly) morphs into an obligation to torture: How do we know this poor schmuck doesn't have vital information unless we torture him? I used to go to Bartcop and donate to him regularly but broke with him finally over this very point.

Of course, the "ticking time bomb" scenario falls apart as soon as you start asking questions about how in the world you've caught someone you know for a fact is a horrible, bloodthirsty terrorist but you don't know anything about his movements, his associates, or anything else. Maybe some Hollywood script writer can come up with a scenario that drops a terrorist into the laps of the authorities just as his diabolical plan is about to come to fruition, but there's no way I can think of in real life where the authorities would have so much information about a suspect and not have the last, vital piece of information about the approximate where or when of the attack.

[fshrink]

15. Will any of the rulers tell us what is not justified?

Probably not because turns out the answer is "nothing."

[Solly Mack]

16. (tolja so)

"Sen. John McCain, who pushed the White House to support a ban on torture, suggested Sunday that harsh treatment of a terrorism suspect who knew of an imminent attack would not violate international standards."

He's a fucking liar - because it WOULD violate international standards - but I guess all the US has to say now is that people had imminent knowledge so the torture is justified. Later they can say they were wrong...kinda like Iraq's WMD, huh?

and international standards ALREADY DO apply to the US.

and this part:


"The Arizona Republican said legislation before Congress would establish in U.S. law the international standard banning any treatment of prisoners that "shocks the conscience."

That would include, McCain said, mock executions and "water boarding," in which a subject is made to think he is drowning.

Asked on ABC's "This Week" whether such treatment of a terrorism suspect who could reveal information that could stop a terrorist operation would shock the conscience, McCain said it would not.
(snip/...)"

The lying piece of shit contradicts himself...he said things that "shock the conscience", notes "water boarding", but then says such things WOULD NOT "shock the conscience" IF the "suspect" had "imminent knowledge"

[shantipriya]

17. McCain?

And this is the guy who could be the next President. He doesn't know wwhat he is saying.Media has given this guy too much credit ,just because he was a POW.

[deminks]

18. Gawd, there he goes again, destroying that pedestal that

people try to put under him. He is much too close to the evil.




Don't forget that McCain was eating cake, too.

[daleo]

44. Good point about the cake. n/t

[Pavulon]

21. Definitions are key here

I thing making an geneva defined illegal combatant unhappy by keeping them awake, threatening them, playing mind games is acceptable under certain guidelines.

Drugging, or physical manipulation (waterboard, pain positions, etc) is not.

Depends on who and why.

Obviously the people we are dealing with do not play by the book, so we have to go off the beaten path.

Physical harm or death is unacceptable. Death should only be applied by a geneva defined trial for enemy illegal combatants.

[Bridget Burke]

26. How does Geneva define "enemy illegal combatant"?

How is that different from POW?

Torture is more than going "off the beaten path." Fuck "certain guidelines."

And no real trials will be used for our "enemy illegal combatants." Just special "military tribunals".

[Pavulon]

34. A spy, non-uniformed combatant, etc

I remember the army's basic training on this. At that time there were no illegal combatants, or they were not incorporated into our class. Just the rules of when to shoot and when not to, basically.

For example "putting someone out of their misery" is illegal. Shooting an unarmed person is not if they are conducting combat operations(spotting, etc)

From my limited exposure to this an illegal combatant is a non uniformed group engaging in combat. Spies (like the guys who flipped road signs in the battle of the bulge) are subject to tribunal and execution. They can not be tortured. They are subject to death. Someone in civilian clothes setting bombs is an illegal combatant and can be shot on the battlefield, held prisoner, and be executed. They can not be tortured.

POW is a status granted to military personnel.

Tribunals are covered under the GC and include detention, trial, and punishment.

[Bridget Burke]

36. The status of "illegal combatants" is unclear in the Geneva Conventions...

Should the "tribunals" go first, to separate the illegal combatants from the POWs? When did these tribunals occur? Or--are the tribunals coming, for those held as illegal?

The "Military Tribunal" was used here ONCE, in 1942. The Bush regime seems to be the first to really use the category. If the category was NOT mentioned in Basic, where did you encounter the concept?

I consulted Wikipedia--which is not free of bias. It does appear that "illegal combatant" is a spurious category, used as a convenience for holding people that Bush wants to hold--no explanation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

Edited to add: The Geneva Convention does not appear to encourage torture--for anyone.

Any detailed documentation would be really useful here.

[Pavulon]

39. Beyond what I said

I would be guessing. I never heard of an illegal combatant in the army.

I have no idea who the term covers now. I don't keep up with anybody still in to ask them.

May have confused something from the UCMJ. A soldier can be executed under certain rules. Enemy soldiers or civilians can be executed by the military under certain rules.

I have no idea of the details.

Spies can be as well, on a tour in london i remember the guide saying the last people executed in the tower of london were spies, if memory serves.

Edit:grammar

[Bridget Burke]

41. All those "details" are quite important.

And there's still no good reason for torturing ANYONE!

[Realityhack]

48. which is what the actual pertanant international law says.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

[Realityhack]

45. The pertanant international law is

The UN convention against torture

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

I think thats prity F-ing clear.

[JackDragna]

22. The lunacy of torture..

..is not only that it's cruel, it's ultimately ineffective, as people will say anything and give all kinds of false positives to satisfy their captors.

[MrPrax]

23. How would you know?

How you know if the 'terrorist' knew about an immenient attack unless you tortured him?

People are aware that the 'ticking bomb' scenario is little more than a fake ethics problem best dealt with by folks like Dershowitz.

A true low for humanity--

Quite shocking that McCain wants to pass himself off as a moral person.

[AzDar]

24. I'm sorry..but every time McCain opens his mouth the more it becomes

apparent that he suffered more than permanent PHYSICAL damage at the hands of the NVA.
Thank you, Mr. McCain, for nobly serving our country...now, just GO HOME!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

25. So he would put another man through what HE went through

I guess they're right. The body cannot remember intense pain- only that it happened. He's lost his fucking mind.

[killbotfactory]

27. I would like to see a foreign enemy try this on one of our soldiers

I don't think we'd be hearing "oh, well, it's not REALLY torture" from these assholes like McCain...

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

28. OPENS THE DOOR ANY TIME to TORTURE- say they "thought" he had attack info

oopz we goofed-
-sorry- he was just a "librul" anti-Bush/anti-American/-
-yeah he was "technically " an American Citizen-so what?
-so we did permanent damage to a "dee" tainee...big deal !

Happens all the time so let's get over it and move on-
We thought he was the bad guy, he wasn't so forget about it!

He wasn't a productive member of society anyway so who cares right?

[Julius Civitatus]

29. Why do they keep quoting "24," a stupid TV show?

The stupid thesis presented by that simplistic-minded "24" is used by all politicians these days to justify torture. Questions:

- Why are they using the impossible situations of that idiotic show to decide something as serious as torture?

- Who wrote the script of that episode of "24"? Alberto Gonzalez?

- Why not using other fictional shows to justify American policy? Say, what if an alien race comes here to enslave humans like in the "X Files"? Should we base our laws on the "X Files" too? (rolling eyes)

- Are so stupid as to believe that torture would work on that specific situation? Seriously. Think about it.

- Are we so stupid as a nation to base our beliefs and principles on stupid TV shows on Fox? Please don't answer that question; too depressing.

:shrug:

[mtnester]

30. So. should we review the torture McCain underwent and determine

what part of it was "acceptable?"

The man has absolutely no self esteem, he imitates empathy and then discards it with the speed of a humping jackrabbit when it suits him. I swear he needs a mental health intervention.

[toopers]

35. I'm not sure if I agree with him . . . but

I do know that we should not publicize what we are willing to do and what we are not willing to do.

[Bridget Burke]

37. Since our own soldiers could be taken prisoner....

I would hope we would come out against torture.

[Pavulon]

56. It was common knowledge

that if you were captured in Afghanistan you would be on tv getting the queen of hearts.

To be Clear Not saying we should torture people.

[Realityhack]

50. Not necisarily true.

We do actualy publish what police officers can and can't do and they still get conffesions/information/etc.

But far more importantly, the view that we should not pubish what we are willing to do is an extreamly limited look at the issue. First off it implies that you think we should try to make it seem like we might be willing to do something worse than we are willing to do. Much of the time those threats actualy qualify as torture themselves (mental stress can qualify as torture as well) and have the same drawbacks as phisical pain (ie you would say anything if you thought I would kill your kid or you or whatever).

Furthermore as another person pointed out our own soldiers, spies, and innocent (not to mention guilty) civilians are imprisoned for various reasons all over the world. One of the points of the convention against torture and the geneva conventions etc. is to ensure that by publishing and following through on treating our prisoners right other countries will have an incentive not to mis-treat our people.

On top of all that... we are talking about a terrorism context. A few things pop right out there. First off any hint that we might torture plays right into the hands of those who promote terror. Actualy admiting to it... thats 1,000 times better from there point of view. But if you come out and prove you are not... it takes some of the wind out of their sails.
In addition, do you beleive we should not publish what we are willing to do to domestic 'terrorists'? Where do you draw the line? Citizenship? Is that how the government is positioning itself? Seems to me the government was recently caught tracking a bunch of highshool kids who had the odacity to protest missles as a posible threat to the homeland. I would say at least in some cases that policy would be blatantly un-constitutional.

Torture is blatantly illegal under international law, see the UN convention against torture, and there is no excuse for it.

[mitchum]

38. Another "moderate" position for the 2008 candidate...

AKA PNAC Water Boy

[daleo]

43. So, were the North Vietnamese justified in torturing McCain?

I am sure they considered U.S. pilots bombing North Viet Nam to be the equivalent of terrorists.

[Realityhack]

47. Under his deffinition... perhapse (n/t)

[Realityhack]

46. So did McCain have info on an imminent threat...

when he was tortured?

Moron. I have no simpathy for somone who would inflict that on others.

[Rainscents]

49. FLIP FLOP...FLIP FLOP...FLIP FLOP... FLIP FLOP...FLIP FLOP...

McCain, make up your fucking mind! You're such a piece of shit!

[mmonk]

53. Maybe given that he was tortured,

he can come up with the right methods. The ticking time bomb scenario is a red herring.

[Thorandmjolnir]

54. Not long ago

I heard a program on the radio about an American-Afghanistan, who was working with the US forces in Afghanistan as a translator. One of his father's friends was being sought by the US troops for information. The translator convinced the guy to turn himself in and clear up any questions the US troops might have.

After two days, the guy was found death, showing signs of torture. The translator said, that after that incident, no one would turn them self in or provide information to the US troops, for fear of being tortured themselves.

That is the real result of having torture. No one trust you, least of all the people you really need to cooperate with.


(Sorry, no link)