NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: At last! Someone who's realistic about so-called "torture." Just one more reason to back McCain in 2008. :)


McCain: Some coercion may be permissible (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


Associated Press
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 the controversial technique known as “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.

“In that million-to-one situation, then the president of the United States would authorize it and take responsibility for it,” McCain said.

“We’ve gone a long way from having that kind of scenario to having prisons around the world, to the renditions, to the things that have been done which are, in my view, not appropriate,” he said.

McCain said he is confident Congress will set the interrogation procedures all U.S. agencies will follow.

After months of rejecting a call for antitorture legislation, President Bush last week accepted McCain’s proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects. Bush had threatened to veto any bill that contained the ban while maintaining that the U.S. did not condone torture.

“You can get into a debate about what shocks the conscience and what is cruel and inhuman, and to some extent, I suppose, that’s in the eye of the beholder,” Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview to be broadcast Monday on ABC News “Nightline.” “But I believe, and we think it’s important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it’s important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them.”

Cheney said he supported the compromise Bush worked out with McCain.

Pressure for the ban had built from Republicans in Congress as well as from abroad. Abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as well as reports of U.S. renditions of prisoners to countries in Europe, called into question claims that torture was neither ordered nor allowed.

The legislation proposed by McCain is part of a massive defense bill before Congress.

COMMENTARY: At last! Someone who's realistic about so-called "torture." Just one more reason to back McCain in 2008. :)


McCain: Some coercion may be permissible (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)

“But I believe, and we think it’s important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it’s important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them.”



Bush puts Iraqi death toll at 30,000

US President George W Bush has said about 30,000 Iraqis have been killed since the Iraq war began.

He made the estimate during a speech and question-and-answer session at the World Affairs Council in Philadelphia.

It was the first time Mr Bush has publicly offered such an estimate.

His aides quickly pointed out the president was not offering an official estimate.

"There is not an official US Government estimate," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

He said the 30,000 figure was based on "public estimates cited by media reports"...

...Mr Bush's figure for the death toll among Iraqis was in the range given by Iraq Body Count, a US-British non-governmental group, which currently says between 27,383 and 30,892 civilians - rather than all Iraqi citizens - have been killed in Iraq since the invasion.
- Reuters (ABC online Dec 13 2005) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1530256.htm



So I guess that makes captured Americans 10 times more deserving of torture. The US can't possibly think they can keep pulling out 9/11 as a defence for inhuman action, after what they have done in their illegal war in Iraq.
I'm just waiting for the day that Abraham Lincoln's prediction for the USA comes true.

I really have no idea what McCain sees in the Republican party. I agree with him on about 90% of his positions. He probably es them (the GOP) off more than any Dem other than Hillary Clinton.:rolleyes:

COMMENTARY: At last! Someone who's realistic about so-called "torture." Just one more reason to back McCain in 2008. :)


McCain: Some coercion may be permissible (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


Associated Press
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 the controversial technique known as “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.

“In that million-to-one situation, then the president of the United States would authorize it and take responsibility for it,” McCain said.

“We’ve gone a long way from having that kind of scenario to having prisons around the world, to the renditions, to the things that have been done which are, in my view, not appropriate,” he said.

McCain said he is confident Congress will set the interrogation procedures all U.S. agencies will follow.

After months of rejecting a call for antitorture legislation, President Bush last week accepted McCain’s proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects. Bush had threatened to veto any bill that contained the ban while maintaining that the U.S. did not condone torture.

“You can get into a debate about what shocks the conscience and what is cruel and inhuman, and to some extent, I suppose, that’s in the eye of the beholder,” Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview to be broadcast Monday on ABC News “Nightline.” “But I believe, and we think it’s important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it’s important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them.”

Cheney said he supported the compromise Bush worked out with McCain.

Pressure for the ban had built from Republicans in Congress as well as from abroad. Abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as well as reports of U.S. renditions of prisoners to countries in Europe, called into question claims that torture was neither ordered nor allowed.

The legislation proposed by McCain is part of a massive defense bill before Congress.

ANd the best part is that if the President doesn't agree with the law, he can secretly break it. :D

ANd the best part is that if the President doesn't agree with the law, he can secretly break it. :D
And if a news agency finds out and publicizes it they can be accused of harming national security!

I really have no idea what McCain sees in the Republican party. I agree with him on about 90% of his positions. He probably es them (the GOP) off more than any Dem other than Hillary Clinton.:rolleyes:
Uh, lesse, he's pro-military, anti-abortion, and anti-pork?

Uh, lesse, he's pro-military, anti-abortion, and anti-pork?
Um, the Republicans are just as likely to use porkbarrel projects as Democrats.

Well great! Lets here it for torture! You'll forgive McCain if he doesn't add that to his platform in '08.

It really doesn't seem like people need reasons and justifications to torture each other. It's a human thing. For centuries there have been sadistic people willing to inflict pain out of shear enjoyment. Of course that's not us, we have official reasons. ;)

They are the ENEMY. Don't you people get it?

If any of you guys living near me, were fucking around with somwthing illegal, id have the Feds on your ass so fast, from now on , americans better be covering their ass, if they intend to do illegal things.

Rich

They are the ENEMY. Don't you people get it?

If any of you guys living near me, were fucking around with somwthing illegal, id have the Feds on your ass so fast, from now on , americans better be covering their ass, if they intend to do illegal things.

Rich
If you mean anything besides terrorism, I applaude your example for our children:

What would Judas do?

And may I say, America's killed MANY more Iraqis then Iraq has killed Americans. About 30,000 to about 2,000. And also, if somebody from America was captured and tortured, you call it an outrage, get mad at them, invoke 9/11, etc, etc. But if America tortures one of them, you call it nescisary to national securtity. What is so different about those situations, hmm?

They are the ENEMY. Don't you people get it?

Meh ... they're not my enemy. But, then, nobody is my enemy.

And may I say, America's killed MANY more Iraqis then Iraq has killed Americans. About 30,000 to about 2,000. And also, if somebody from America was captured and tortured, you call it an outrage, get mad at them, invoke 9/11, etc, etc. But if America tortures one of them, you call it nescisary to national securtity. What is so different about those situations, hmm?

Well said! 9/11 killed roughly 3,000 innocent Americans. This monstrosity of a war has killed roughly 30,000 innocent Iraqis. Who're the real monsters, here? We are 10 times (Indeed, that is statistically accurate!) the monster that Al-Qaeda was.

They are the ENEMY. Don't you people get it?

If any of you guys living near me, were fucking around with somwthing illegal, id have the Feds on your ass so fast, from now on , americans better be covering their ass, if they intend to do illegal things.

Rich

The enemy? :confused: Who are you talking about? Terrorists? Democrats? Republicans? Bush? Father Christmas? The donkey from the other thread?

The enemy? :confused: Who are you talking about? Terrorists? Democrats? Republicans? Bush? Father Christmas? The donkey from the other thread?

Don't mock, that is a pretty savage donkey!

Well said! 9/11 killed roughly 3,000 innocent Americans. This monstrosity of a war has killed roughly 30,000 innocent Iraqis. Who're the real monsters, here? We are 10 times (Indeed, that is statistically accurate!) the monster that Al-Qaeda was.

30,000 innocent Iraqis? Haha if Sadam's henchmen are considered innocent. Yeah that's it let give the Royal Guard the same status as 9/11 victims.:rolleyes:

You are all talking about death counts when this should have nothing to do with how appropriate torture is.

Whether or not torture is acceptable should have NOTHING to do with 9/11 aside from the fact that we are now more aware that there can be serious security crises. It shouldn't matter how many Americans died on that day aside from the concept that many people died because of plane hijackings. Thusly, plane security should be increased. As should all transportation security, just as trains and busses have been bombed. This can be achieved without federal ID cards. If you have a federal ID card it doesn't mean that you can't bring a bomb onto a bus, it just knows that they'll know you are before you blow them up. The FBI snooping on your library account is not necessary. Seriously, if you want books on making bombs and don't want people to know, it can be done. And torture should have nothing to do with how badly anyone has suffered, but on how effective it is on preventing further crises.

I'd just play the latest Madonna album. That'd work on me.

I'm a little confused by this--McCain says that in a very specific one-in-a-million circumstance, he'd support something like waterboarding or mock executions and that's translated into "some coercion?" Am I alone in seeing the disconnect here/

30,000 innocent Iraqis? Haha if Sadam's henchmen are considered innocent. Yeah that's it let give the Royal Guard the same status as 9/11 victims.:rolleyes:


Yes, 30,000 civilians, like the people in the Twin Towers, the figure does not include military casualties. Dubya's actions have caused more death than Osama could dream of committing himself.

And may I say, America's killed MANY more Iraqis then Iraq has killed Americans. About 30,000 to about 2,000. And also, if somebody from America was captured and tortured, you call it an outrage, get mad at them, invoke 9/11, etc, etc. But if America tortures one of them, you call it nescisary to national securtity. What is so different about those situations, hmm?

Ever hear of the Battle of Cannae? It's ancient history mind you but still, it serves well to offer up a sense of perspective and scope. It was about 44,000 under Hannibal (mostly Numidian, Iberian, and Celtic mercs) against 100,000 Romans. At the end of the day on August 2, 216 BC about 66,000 men were dead on field in Italy, most of them Romans with Hannibal's army claiming total victory with 10,000 captured Romans.

That's TWICE the body count of this "war" in Iraq dead in a single day!

Consider yourself and the world lucky that a real war hasn't been seen in almost five decades.

Reminds me of a poster I saw with Osama imposed as Uncle Sam pointing at the viewer.
"I want YOU to invade Iraq."

On the waterboarding issue, to those who are more supportive of it being used to gain information- if you do not consider it torture, how would you feel if an American Marine was captured abroad (by anyone say) or maybe a US citizen believed to be a spy, and they were subjected to this treatment... for 'intelligence' reasons? Genuine question.

Anger and outrage?

Meh, its perfectly ok with me?

Another thing I find confusing about that headline choice--McCain never says it would be permissible in the sense that it would be legal. “In that million-to-one situation, then the president of the United States would authorize it and take responsibility for it,” McCain said.
To me, that reads that the president who authorized such actions would open himself up to any disciplinary action the Congress saw fit to bestow upon him for violating the law. It might be nothing, but he'd face the possibility.

McCain is so cool.

I am a middle road democrat and I have no problem voting for McCain in 08'. One interesting idea I heard is that Joe Biden said he would have no problem running with or against McCain. I think it would be awsome to have to moderates like Biden and McCain cross party lines to run for president and vice president. I think if they did that it would really break up party lines. I support McCain. I would like to say though I think the ten senators that voted against McCain in this matter should be voted out. I dont care what party they are or who they are.

Ever hear of the Battle of Cannae? It's ancient history mind you but still, it serves well to offer up a sense of perspective and scope. It was about 44,000 under Hannibal (mostly Numidian, Iberian, and Celtic mercs) against 100,000 Romans. At the end of the day on August 2, 216 BC about 66,000 men were dead on field in Italy, most of them Romans with Hannibal's army claiming total victory with 10,000 captured Romans.

That's TWICE the body count of this "war" in Iraq dead in a single day!

Consider yourself and the world lucky that a real war hasn't been seen in almost five decades.


Oh, well gee that puts it into perspective. How stupid of me to give a toss about 30,000 innocent civilians dead, when 66,000 soldiers died 1800 years ago. I'm sure their families consider themselves "lucky that a real war hasn't been seen in almost five decades."

Ain't no way in hell that would happen. The party machines have too much of a grip on ballot access.

Ain't no way in hell that would happen. The party machines have too much of a grip on ballot access.

Never say never. I think that McCain and Biden are two moderates who really do want to make our country better. Without worring so much about where an idea comes from as long as it is a good one that works. If conservative ideas work great use them, if liberal ideas work great use them. If a moderate solution works use that too. Why cant politicians figure this out?

I really have no idea what McCain sees in the Republican party. I agree with him on about 90% of his positions. He probably es them (the GOP) off more than any Dem other than Hillary Clinton.:rolleyes:
Hmmm, really. McCain is generally a fairly conservative guy.