John McCain and Torture

John McCain has a carefully cultivated image as a Senate maverick, a man who talks "straight" and is willing to support unpopular positions if it is in the national interest. Much of that characterization is essentially bogus, with McCain trimming his sails on a regular basis to make himself more electable in his bid for the presidency. In 2000, his depiction of the confederate flag flying over South Carolina's capital shifted from "very offensive" to "a symbol of heritage." McCain attacked Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson of the religious right in the same campaign, calling Falwell an "agent of intolerance," and accurately describing Bob Jones University as anti-Catholic. He paid the price in South Carolina and elsewhere in the south and felt compelled to make his own walk to Canossa, giving the 2006 commencement speech at Falwell's Liberty University to establish his born again credentials. On the issue of immigration, McCain supported a guest workers' scheme coupled with an amnesty mechanism similar to the unpopular program being promoted by the Bush White House, but he now insists that he would unleash the army to seal off the Mexican border if elected president. On tax cuts, McCain opposed Bush's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 because the benefits went disproportionately to the rich, but he now supports making the cuts permanent.

McCain's flip-flop on torture is perhaps his greatest hypocrisy, particularly because he was himself a victim at the hands of the North Vietnamese and because he has often spoken out forcefully against it. He has also bared his scars in support of his political ambitions, featuring in his campaign photos and commentary relating to the physical abuse that he suffered for his country. Citing his time as a POW, McCain has frequently taken the high ground on the detention and interrogation of detainees in the White House's so-called War on Terror. On October 3rd, 2005, he introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005. Two days later the United States Senate voted 90-9 to pass the amendment which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by limiting interrogations to the methods detailed in the US military's Field Manual 34-52 on Intelligence Interrogation.

President Bush had threatened to veto the bill if McCain's language was included but he subsequently accepted McCain's terms after what were reported to be hard-nosed negotiations between the Senator and the White House. McCain, his off-the-cuff comments revealing his genuine ambivalence on the issue, told Chris Matthews of MSNBC:

"We had quite a period of strong, spirited discussion with the administration about that. We passed, as you know, some months ago a thing called the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits any cruel, inhumane treatment, and in this legislation we made it very clear that that still pertained. I won't go through all the details of it, but it does not allow torture, and it will not allow torture. And at the same time, I think you do understand that there are some people who are very, very bad people, and I think that to continue a program for some of them, without torture, is something that we can't deprive the President of the United States of. But I think we struck the right balance, and I can assure you I would never agree to anything that I believe could allow torture. I promise you that."

Bush benefited from the McCain endorsement, saying that he would "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad." But the catch was that President Bush made clear his interpretation of the legislation in a signing statement, reserving what he described as his presidential constitutional authority to avoid further terrorist attacks, which would include the use of torture if necessary. McCain knew perfectly well that he had surrendered on the issue but did not object, feeling that he had occupied the moral high ground and picked up the favorable headlines while preserving the president's authority to carry out "enhanced interrogations."

Even more disturbing is McCain's embrace of the Military Commissions Act of October 2006. The reported "compromise" before the bill was passed and the media acclamation of John McCain as a champion of human rights was shameful. Bush security advisor Stephen Hadley described the bill as "good news and a good day for the American people" while McCain asserted that it safeguarded "the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions." In reality, the act did nothing of the sort. It stripped habeas corpus rights for citizens and non-citizens accused of terrorism and legalized US war crimes committed before December 30th, 2005. It also prevented individuals injured or killed through US violation of the Geneva Conventions from filing a claim in a US court. Legal US residents were denied their right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being enemy combatants and the act also retroactively abolished the right of Guantánamo detainees to challenge their detention. Concerning torture, the act approved the CIA program that had allowed waterboarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" and authorized the president to define Geneva Conventions violations as he sees fit without any appeal to the courts. There is no prohibition of the Bush administration's once again authorizing waterboarding, threats against a prisoner's family, and hypothermia, all of which are considered to be both illegal and war crimes. The Military Commissions also permitted the designation of any individuals as unlawful enemy combatants if they provide material support to those engaged in hostilities against the US, a concept previously found unconstitutional. Even worse, the law expands the definition "unlawful enemy combatant" to include anyone cited by a tribunal under the authority of the president or the defense secretary. The law denies anyone determined to be an enemy combatant and anyone "awaiting such determination" the right to challenge the detention, treatment or conditions of confinement in court, even if there is evidence that they were subjected to torture, and it permits the use of evidence obtained from torture in the military tribunals.

McCain's most recent endorsement of torture was his vote against the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 on February 13th. The bill was hotly debated because it would make it illegal for US intelligence agencies to use interrogation techniques that are forbidden by the military's guidelines. President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation and McCain lined up with 38 other Republican Senators, one Democrat, and his good friend independent Joe Lieberman to vote against it. In the debate McCain argued somewhat bizarrely that while he strongly opposes torture he is unwilling to apply the military's standards to the intelligence agencies. Lieberman commented that waterboarding is not torture in any event as it does not permanent damage.

John McCain is a hypocrite and also a classic enabler. He publicly abhors a practice, apparently reflecting his genuine sentiments, but then covertly supports it for his own personal political gain. He and an acquiescent Congress have bestowed on the president of the United States the unilateral authority to determine interrogation tactics. Administration officials, instead of Congress or the courts, have been empowered to determine what constitutes a violation of the Geneva Conventions. As the White House continues to refuse to detail which interrogation practices are actually barred, it is possible to assume that under the proper circumstances anyone might be tortured based on suspicion or for no reason at all.

Comments

[Stirner]

I'm a registered Republican -- why would the G.O.P. present me with McCain as their candidate? He is simply crazy. I won't vote for him. Happily, there is yet one Republican still standing who has stood up to McCain -- and that guy gets my vote.

[SirReal1]

Philip,

Your commentary is certainly relevant, and I wouldn't suggest that there not be more discussion on the topic, but I'd like to point out that two other posts, over the weekend, provided a great deal of insight into the already voluminous debate.

The blogs can be found at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/16/mccain-cant-keep-stories_n_86984.html

and:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/16/gitmo-interrogator-descri_n_87043.html

I personally participated in only one of the blog discussions, and found the comments from both sides of the issue extremely revealing. It is worth noting here, for any of you who align yourselves with the "no torture" side of the issue, you might be surprised by the vehemence of those who support it. One individual actually posted a thinly veiled threat towards my children as a response to my failure to acquiesce to his view (admittedly, I may have provoked him by being somewhat belligerent in my opposition, but we have a "history" (;-)).

A summation of the comments expressed follows:

[SirReal1]

Fellow bloggers, from reading both of the blogs listed, it is evident that those who "support" torture, are scared.

I don't just mean "apprehensive" or "concerned", I mean SCARED! Down right terrified! They see the next "attack" as imminent! Not only that, but they are fairly well convinced that the attack will likely be on THEIR CITY, and that THEIR HOME, THEIR FAMILY, THEIR SUV, are all likely to be destroyed!

Meet the 25% to 30% who still support this failed administration!

They DO NOT care if, by torturing our captives we are endangering our SOLDIERS! They DO NOT care that by torturing our captives we fail to provide a viable route for the enemy to surrender without fear of mistreatment. They DO NOT care that by torturing our captives we effectively debase ourselves. They DO NOT care that by torturing our captives we ultimately produce mounds of "misinformation" that takes "massive resources" in man-hours to track down.

They simply NEED a night-light left on so the "boogyman" doesn't get them. That night-light is TORTURE!

Either that, or they simply derive some sort of "masochistic pleasure" from the idea that we are inflicting pain upon "a people" that they consider, collectively, to be their enemies.

[SirReal1]

Contrarily, those who "oppose" using torture expressed a steadfast refusal to succumb to fear! Many of them expressed a belief that another attack was possible, if not likely, but acknowledged that even in the event of an attack they would not support "torture" as a means of prevention.

Many (myself included) noted that torture seldom produces any information of value (aka "actionable") and even claims of value seem to be debatable at best. Also noted were the arguments of "increased threat" to our Service Members in the field, the amounts of resource required to "chase down" what amounts to "mis-information leads" and the potential "loss of opportunity" to prevent an attack, while those resources are committed to following dead ends.

None of these arguments swayed the "pro-torture" group.

It must be noted that there is a wide divide on this issue. Reason and results seem to dominate one side of the debate, instinct, prejudice, and fear, the other. The possibility of compromise seems remote.

Those who are living in fear see threats all around. They are certain that we live in a world where all threats CAN BE eliminated, but they are not sure exactly how we can do this with our "liberal Democratic ideals" being allowed to continue. They want to build walls, put up fences, arm the militia's, and deport all the "non-american's" to someplace else. They do not trust me, you, their next door neighbor, or the Government. They trust their family, their friends (to an extent), their Church (if they are religious), and their "gut instinct" that they are right, and all of you are wrong.

They also don't care who their "ideals" cause damage to, just so long as it is not THEM. Much like the people they see as "THE ENEMY" they see NO OTHER OPTION than to "fight to the death" to see that they and their's are PROTECTED.

I don't hold much hope that an "election" is going to change the reality in the psyche' of our once great Nation.

[Szewczyk]

Even though McCain lets the reporters ride with him in the Straight Talk Express and feeds them doughnuts, I've never read anything about McCain's view of signing statements and what he thinks of Bush's signing statement expressing the Administration's intention to ignore McCain's own bill banning the use of torture. Has McCain ever been asked about any of this? What did he say? I know the national media have chosen to ignore as a campaign issue the Bush Administration's frequent violations of our Constitution and statutory laws, but you'd think someone somewhere would have asked McCain these obvious questions.

[RLHotchkiss]

One of the things that almost never gets mentioned in regards to torture is the lives that Bush's policy will definitely cost in the future.

In the war in Panama, US soldiers were often able to get the enemy to surrender over the telephone with such lines as look out the window and see our attack helicopter hovering outside.

People surrendered because they thought that they would be well treated. Now the enemy has seen the torture and seen the sham trails they are going to fight to the death. And, perhaps even more importantly the generals will force the troops to fight to the death.

Avoiding this outcome is the real reason countries like the United States don't publicly brag about torturing people.

At least the families of the the thousands of soldiers who will senselessly die against troops fighting to the death to avoid torture will no that their sacrifice made Bush and Lieberman feel like big men.

[1DarkCelt]

I must admit that I too was willing to pile-on and hang McCain for his heinous flip-floppery. That being said, we were all wrong, so very wrong. We should not be vilifying McCain, but hugging him in our collective embrace. It is indeed obvious what has happened to our hero Johnny. He was recently waterboarded by the Bush administration. No doubt Cheney held him down while W poured the water onto his face. Poor Johnny, he obviously buckled under the duress and has been unable to recover.

[hopeless277]

OK. So if torture gets truthful information from subjects, and John McCain was tortured in VietNam and signed a confession, then does that not mean that his confession was truthful?

[1DarkCelt]

MCCAIN 08


I WAS AGAINST TORTURE BEFORE I WAS FOR IT!!!!

[SamThornton]

If John McCain were really against torture, he'd quit making those damnable campaign appearances.

[Ohg]

The FDA has just recalled 140 million pounds of beef because the slaughter house demonstrated cruelty to the cows and the inspectors were unable to judge the value of the product. This sound like a metaphorical study of Bush and "enemy combatants."....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/18/animal-cruelty-and-torturing-humans/

[LeonBNJ]

I agree with the author as to his assessment of McCain. As I have commented before, if it is a beheavior we would consider as torture if done to an American or an ally, then it is torture to anybody. Unfortuntally too many Americans don't believe torture is wrong with terroritsts, especially if they are Islamic, from certain areas of the world and hate the USA. To me McCain it trying to pander to those potential voters.

[wayoutleft]

mccain is the wet dream war hero of the right-wing service and sacrifice cult. it matters to a real man like barack how he treats other people- but not to mccain. to those tens of millions of americans who seem to know only agression as a response to others; mccain is a comic book hero. anyone who takes a rational approach to policy needs to understand that mccain approaches differences by intimidating others- not convincing them. this all masks real weakness. when he and chimpler got beaten up on immigration, he switched positions immediately- with no pretense that he had changed any real convictions- because he has none. he takes until he's stopped. people like mccain often have some type of war or sanctioned violence credentials- even rudy- that make them difficult to criticize. but it's very unhelpful when a rich man's toadie like mccain is referred to as a "maverick" and a real individual thinker like kucinich is simply dismissed. mccain is just another glory-boy who's working for people who, unlike mccain, can really be successful and make money.

[floydSmoot]

Thanks for reminding us what a political whore McCain has always been.

[LuckyDay]

Somebody tell me, please, why is it when I see and listen to John McCain I think of old trunks in the attic and smell moth balls? Just imagine this war monger, who is still fighting the VietNam war, with his finger on the trigger, not being able to get his thoughts straight. If America elects him president in November we deserve what will follow.

[Dangoodbar]

Once again this discussion shows how wimpy and weak are the Dems.

After McCain had caved on torture allowing for senate approval of a torture bill,

A Dem with balls, say someone running for president like Hillary, Obama or even Dodd or Bidden,

could have gotten up on the Senate floor and announced that one difference between Repugs and Dems is that when it comes to torture, Dems don't compromise. Then that Senator/presidential candidate should have filibustered until enough joined to make it successful or until he/she dropped from exhaustion.

Such a Senator would have become the next president of the United States.

Instead we are still unsure who will be the next president and America now condones torture.

[floydSmoot]

A dem with balls...

Now that would be something.

Something I would even vote for.

[ElkinsParkMoe]

I think McCain's statement that you need tried and true ideas to govern as well as his vote on torture is really telling of how he would lead the country. I do believe he is a good man but not the man we need at this time. We need leaders who are wiling to try things that are new and fresh. If we want to go where we've never been before, we'll have to try things we've not tried before. The same old reflexes will not yeild new results. We need leaders who will lead us towards a brighter future and not just towards more wars and the same old politics. Locking people up for unspecified periods of time and giving in to the worst in us and torturing people is not the way to a secure America. Leadership is more about what you do in times of crisis than in times of comfort.