Jump to content

Insane McCain Votes in Favor of Torture


Anon
 Share

Recommended Posts

John McCain Votes In Favor Of Torture

By: Logan Murphy on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008

The Senate voted today to ban the CIA from using torture on suspected terrorists and the most famous POW in the Senate voted against the bill. The Maverick is now most assuredly dead and the betrayal is complete. The blogosphere was all over this issue, and thankfully the measure passed, but for McCain, it was a show of pure cowardice. In other words, the Senator who himself was tortured for years and has previously spoken out against it, voted to allow the use of torture on others to save his political hide and pander to a party base that despises him. Is this the sort of weakness you want from your Commander in Chief?

Tell me again how this no jobs, more wars, pro-torture, pro-Bush tax cuts, anti-choice, pro-surge Republican is going to draw Independents and Democrats to his side this fall? As a side note, would it surprise you that alleged Democratic caucus members Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman also voted for torture today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Anon (2/15/2008)
John McCain Votes In Favor Of Torture

By: Logan Murphy on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008

The Senate voted today to ban the CIA from using torture on suspected terrorists and the most famous POW in the Senate voted against the bill. The Maverick is now most assuredly dead and the betrayal is complete. The blogosphere was all over this issue, and thankfully the measure passed, but for McCain, it was a show of pure cowardice. In other words, the Senator who himself was tortured for years and has previously spoken out against it, voted to allow the use of torture on others to save his political hide and pander to a party base that despises him. Is this the sort of weakness you want from your Commander in Chief?

Tell me again how this no jobs, more wars, pro-torture, pro-Bush tax cuts, anti-choice, pro-surge Republican is going to draw Independents and Democrats to his side this fall? As a side note, would it surprise you that alleged Democratic caucus members Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman also voted for torture today?

Did you see Obama's speech Tuesday night? I thought he did an excellent, devestating but fair attack on McCain regarding his innitial "courageous" stance on the Bush tax cuts, then skewering him on the reversal of stance.

This is another of an increasingly long list of opportunties to repeat just that sort of attack: Praise him for a courageous position, then focus on the pandering reversal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope reporters misunderstood McCain's justification for his vote (quoted below). This makes no sense to me:

The leading Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona, a former prisoner of war who steadfastly opposes the use of torture, voted against the bill. Mr. McCain said the ban would limit the C.I.A. s ability to gather intelligence. We always supported allowing the C.I.A. to use extra measures, he said.

At the same time, he said that he believed waterboarding is illegal and should be banned and that the agency must adhere to existing federal law and international treaties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/J...nd_Security.htm

Hiding torture is wrong, and harms US credibility abroad

Q: This report that the CIA destroyed tapes of its interrogation of two terror detainees--do you believe that the agency was trying to hide something?

A: I do not know. But the actions were absolutely wrong. I'm glad that the attorney general is going to investigate it. This harms the credibility and the moral standing of America in the world, again. There will be skepticism and cynicism all over the world about how we treat prisoners and whether we practice torture or not.

Q: The CIA director says the tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of the officers involved in the interrogation. Do you buy that?

A: We certainly want to do everything we can to protect the identities of those in the CIA. But he was advised not to [destroy the tapes] b several people, including high-ranking members of the administration. We're also setting up a false argument here between torture & moral high ground. That doesn't have to be. We have to keep the moral high ground. We can do it without torturing people.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Dec 9, 2007

------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramen (2/15/2008)
I hope reporters misunderstood McCain's justification for his vote (quoted below). This makes no sense to me:

The leading Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona, a former prisoner of war who steadfastly opposes the use of torture, voted against the bill. Mr. McCain said the ban would limit the C.I.A. s ability to gather intelligence. We always supported allowing the C.I.A. to use extra measures, he said.

At the same time, he said that he believed waterboarding is illegal and should be banned and that the agency must adhere to existing federal law and international treaties.

OK . . . this is delicate and I'm not sure how to express myself on the issue: For many years, LONG before McCain was going to be the Republican nominee, I've had concerns about McCain's mental stability. He does stuff that just makes NO SENSE.

But he IS an American hero, and you can't just call someone like McCain insane. But it's an unspoken issue. Obama can fairly call McCain on the flip flopping.

But I wonder if people are going to think that it's not just flip flopping, but flakiness, or worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses (2/15/2008)

Did you see Obama's speech Tuesday night? I thought he did an excellent, devestating but fair attack on McCain regarding his innitial "courageous" stance on the Bush tax cuts, then skewering him on the reversal of stance.

This is another of an increasingly long list of opportunties to repeat just that sort of attack: Praise him for a courageous position, then focus on the pandering reversal.

Yes, the Obama camp has already started disposing of McInsane nicely. McCain's a liar, a criminal, a war monger, a hypocrite, and an insane nihilist with the charisma of a dead body.

Many talking heads are claiming the polls suggest an Obama vs McCain match-up would result in the widest margin of victory in the history of the United States. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anon (2/15/2008)
holymoses (2/15/2008)

Did you see Obama's speech Tuesday night? I thought he did an excellent, devestating but fair attack on McCain regarding his innitial "courageous" stance on the Bush tax cuts, then skewering him on the reversal of stance.

This is another of an increasingly long list of opportunties to repeat just that sort of attack: Praise him for a courageous position, then focus on the pandering reversal.

Yes, the Obama camp has already started disposing of McInsane nicely. McCain's a liar, a criminal, a war monger, a hypocrite, and an insane nihilist with the charisma of a dead body.

Many talking heads are claiming the polls suggest an Obama vs McCain match-up would result in the widest margin of victory in the history of the United States. :)

I think you are being overly harsh. Concerns and ideology aside. I do have tremendous respect for McCain. You have to be very careful how you attack him. Of course, you should be careful how you attack anyone. There should always be substantive fairness.

So let's avoid the name calling and stick to the facts and issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses(2/15/2008)
OK . . . this is delicate and I'm not sure how to express myself on the issue: For many years, LONG before McCain was going to be the Republican nominee, I've had concerns about McCain's mental stability. He does stuff that just makes NO SENSE.

But he IS an American hero, and you can't just call someone like McCain insane. But it's an unspoken issue. Obama can fairly call McCain on the flip flopping.

But I wonder if people are going to think that it's not just flip flopping, but flakiness, or worse?

I agree that you can't dismiss McCain just by calling him "insane". I also agree that McCain is in danger of coming across as a flake by flip-flopping on so many supposedly core values.

What's strange is that this vote wasn't even necessary, assuming that he doesn't have a valid reason for opposing this bill while supporting others that would ban waterboarding as torture. He's won the nomination. Why continue to pander, if that's what he's doing?

I have to think he's got a good reason for opposing this bill and just didn't articulate it very clearly, or the reporter didn't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anon (2/15/2008)

Many talking heads are claiming the polls suggest an Obama vs McCain match-up would result in the widest margin of victory in the history of the United States. :)

Well, unless David Byrne is one of them, I don't buy it. Tina Weymouth and Chris Frantz just don't have the credibility to make that prediction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses (2/15/2008)

I think you are being overly harsh. Concerns and ideology aside. I do have tremendous respect for McCain. You have to be very careful how you attack him. Of course, you should be careful how you attack anyone. There should always be substantive fairness.

So let's avoid the name calling and stick to the facts and issues.

I concur.

Fact #1: 100 Years in Iraq "Would be fine by me."

Fact #2: "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

Fact #3: "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

Fact #4: McCain is a crook. Keating Five

Fact #5: Several POWs dispute songbird McCain's personal torture claims.

Fact #6: He just voted for torture.

How can anyone respect this guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (2/15/2008)
Good for McCain!

If a terrorist has information that could save American lives and he's not talking, then by all means torture his azz! Imagine if we had captured a terrorist who had direct information on 9/11. You would just say "OK he's not talking" and let him be?!?!?!

Endorsing torture opens a huge can of worms our country does not want to get into. We could NEVER expect the humane treatment of our people abroad if we are widely known for torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (2/15/2008)
Good for McCain!

If a terrorist has information that could save American lives and he's not talking, then by all means torture his azz! Imagine if we had captured a terrorist who had direct information on 9/11. You would just say "OK he's not talking" and let him be?!?!?!

This is the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

By using torture, you can get ANYONE to confess to ANYTHING.

Disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anon (2/15/2008)
holymoses (2/15/2008)

I think you are being overly harsh. Concerns and ideology aside. I do have tremendous respect for McCain. You have to be very careful how you attack him. Of course, you should be careful how you attack anyone. There should always be substantive fairness.

So let's avoid the name calling and stick to the facts and issues.

I concur.

Fact #1: 100 Years in Iraq "Would be fine by me."

Fact #2: "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

Fact #3: "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

Fact #4: McCain is a crook. Keating Five

Fact #5: Several POWs dispute songbird McCain's personal torture claims.

Fact #6: He just voted for torture.

How can anyone respect this guy?

Let's also stay clear of the POW smears. You know those attacks are pure garbage and are only asserted by the remaining lunatic POW/MIA's who were deprived of that which gave their live meaning when Kerry and McCain declared the issue officially over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses (2/15/2008)
Anon (2/15/2008)
holymoses (2/15/2008)

I think you are being overly harsh. Concerns and ideology aside. I do have tremendous respect for McCain. You have to be very careful how you attack him. Of course, you should be careful how you attack anyone. There should always be substantive fairness.

So let's avoid the name calling and stick to the facts and issues.

I concur.

Fact #1: 100 Years in Iraq "Would be fine by me."

Fact #2: "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

Fact #3: "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

Fact #4: McCain is a crook. Keating Five

Fact #5: Several POWs dispute songbird McCain's personal torture claims.

Fact #6: He just voted for torture.

How can anyone respect this guy?

Let's also stay clear of the POW smears. You know those attacks are pure garbage and are only asserted by the remaining lunatic POW/MIA's who were deprived of that which gave their live meaning when Kerry and McCain declared the issue officially over.

Very well, the other 5 facts stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for McCain!

If a terrorist has information that could save American lives and he's not talking, then by all means torture his azz! Imagine if we had captured a terrorist who had direct information on 9/11. You would just say "OK he's not talking" and let him be?!?!?!

**************************

Right...because it would be reasonable to expect an honest and accurate answer from him. And no way would a US reputation for torture jeapardize countless other Americans...

/sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

etifan (2/15/2008)
Good for McCain!

If a terrorist has information that could save American lives and he's not talking, then by all means torture his azz! Imagine if we had captured a terrorist who had direct information on 9/11. You would just say "OK he's not talking" and let him be?!?!?!

**************************

Right...because it would be reasonable to expect an honest and accurate answer from him. And no way would a US reputation for torture jeapardize countless other Americans...

/sarcasm

Let the man speak for himself:

Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects-in part-the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses (2/15/2008)

Right...because it would be reasonable to expect an honest and accurate answer from him. And no way would a US reputation for torture jeapardize countless other Americans...

/sarcasm

*********************************

Let the man speak for himself:

Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects-in part-the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.

Well put and thanks for sharing the quote. Rarely does anything good come of the "Everyone else is doing it" argument. Unless, of course, one believes radical Islam is our only enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (2/15/2008)
Good for McCain!

If a terrorist has information that could save American lives and he's not talking, then by all means torture his azz! Imagine if we had captured a terrorist who had direct information on 9/11. You would just say "OK he's not talking" and let him be?!?!?!

So the fact that McCain has reversed during the heat of a campaign what was once a core, firmly held position doesn't bother you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (2/15/2008)
Ramen (2/15/2008)
Steve_Bartkowski (2/15/2008)
Good for McCain!

If a terrorist has information that could save American lives and he's not talking, then by all means torture his azz! Imagine if we had captured a terrorist who had direct information on 9/11. You would just say "OK he's not talking" and let him be?!?!?!

So the fact that McCain has reversed during the heat of a campaign what was once a core, firmly held position doesn't bother you?

Not if he's moving to the side of the issue that I happen to agree with.

:w00t::w00t::w00t:

It's okay if he's a flip-flopping politician who can't be trusted to say what he means, so long as he's saying the right things TODAY. :hehe:

C'mon Steve, you're smarter than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (2/15/2008)
I would have voted for McCain before this. Now that he is on my side of the issue I want to vote for him even more. Make sense? The fact that McCain was against torture before wasn't enough for me not to vote for him.

Well, as it turns out McCain isn't on your side of the issue.

But the point still stands, IF this were a flip-flop by McCain (which it's not), then you would be perfectly OK embracing someone who will sell out his core political beliefs for political gain.

Again, you're better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...