MORE TORTURE
(Source) The US Senate voted 90-9 early last month to attach an amendment authored by Republican Senator John McCain to a defense spending bill that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of detainees in US custody. But the White House has threatened to veto the measure and has lobbied senators to have the language removed or modified to allow an exemption for the CIA.
Why?! So the network of covert CIA prisons can be the next Abu Graib or GITMO?
But McCain, who appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" program, said White House negotiators led by Vice President Richard Cheney were pushing to safeguard the option of using the enhanced interrogation techniques in order to get information from detainees in extraordinary circumstances.
Dick Cheney is as evil as they come.
The senator said he disagreed with that approach because he was worried about the damage to the image of the United States.
Damage control for our image. Now there's a novel concept.
"I hold no brief for the terrorists," he said. "But it's not about them. It's about us. This battle we're in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be."
Hmm, McCain '08?
posted by Sar at 11:14 PM
18 Comments:
Did you ever notice how Cheney always looks as if he's mumbling "Where is your God now?"
He probably has bodies in a crawlspace beneath his undisclosed location.
)+(
I hope so, Sar. It depends on whether the Republicans have learned much since 2000.
Amazing isn't it? I'm with gabriel on this. Cheney is probably a mass murderer in his spare time.
McCain? We could do worse. With the Democrats so fractured and unfocused, our only hope may be a sane Republican like McCain, Giuliani or Hagel.
If Guiliani makes the bill, I'm going on a rampage. That man is more evil than Cheney, Vader and Sheer Khan rolled into one.
If I had to vote for a Republican, I'd want it to be McCain. He's motivated by reason and by the needs of the people, rather than by religion or conservative tendencies. Plus? My parents who live in AZ (one Dem, one Rep) both LOVE him.
I'd also like to say that I've never really seen the problem with torture being used in interrogations during wartime. I figure if it's okay to shoot people or blast them away with flamethrowers, then all rules must be off, right? But I could be wrong.
I do, however, have a problem with a double standard. If we're going to agree that torture is wrong, then torture should be wrong across the board. Cheney's really not helping the US shed its jackass image these days.
sar- We'll gladly loan McCain to you guys if you want to run him as your candidate in '08. (And we'll throw in Arlen Specter at no extra charge!)
I love how political this blog is!
TLM, you're trying to lose!
doug- I'm in a generous mood today.
araider- Amen to that! I'm with Alan Dershowitz on the torture issue. If torture is done as a last resort only -- and if it possibly prevents some of us from being blown up by terrorists -- then I say string them up by their toenails until they talk.
Gabriel - Normally I'd say you've been spending too much time with your horror film collection, but you know I think you might be onto something there.
TLP - And yet I can't imagine Cheney being on anyone's most wanted list.
Laura - That's a good thing, I hope?
Araider - Yay, you're back! Where ya been?!
Actonbell - Thanks for the go ahead, it will be my first post linking to a pez! :)
Doug, Tom, Maine & TLM - I'll respond to your comments enmass to keep the group dialog going...
I have no problem crossing party lines for the right (so to speak) candidate. I like McCain and what he stands for. I like that he's not a tunnel visioned, religious zealot appeasing, fuck em all I'll do as I please politician. He strikes me as being just moderate enough. But I'm with Maine on Guiliani. I can't stand him and mind you I also got a taste of this corrupt crook's antics when I used to work on Wall Street and he was mayor. Personally, I wouldn't mind a McCain/Obama (yes, with Obama in the veep spot) ticket, but I don't think that's likely to happen.
As for torture. That is a slippery slope. Maine disputes the double standards. And TLM only condones through caveats. I watch 24 and I love it when Jack Bauer kicks the terrorists asses to get information (well that that actually has more to do with seeing Jack in action *sigh...*, sorry I digress). But in reality, I'm conflicted. As a general rule, I oppose torture. But is it okay in certain circumstances? What constitues an exception and who deems this? And if by making one exception aren't we inviting a slew of exceptions per circumstance and eventually right back at Abu Graib and GITMO?
TLM, I'm curious who you'd nominate for Prez. (I mean it as a question, by the way, not a challenge)
Sar, I think we were typing at the same time. I'll respond to your position on torture for provocation's sake. I'm willing to have a few thousand extra Americans, including possibly me, die because the terrorists took advantage of our integrity and transparency before I'll accept a shady national government. For the next three years, though, I think it's a false dichotomy because I don't think this administration knows a terrorist or would ask the right questions of a waterboarded detainee anyhow.
"blubblubblubblubblub- I just asked if you wanted fries with that!"
"BOY! I already know you're trying to roll back the tax cuts but when---and where!"
doug- My list of preferred nominees is very short, unfortunately. George Allen would be a wonderful choice, and I'm now a big fan of Tom Coburn. Jeb's not available in '08 (or so he says.)
And Senator DeWine might soon find himself unemployed. He'd be a fine choice as well (his shameful Gang of 14 membership notwithstanding)!
Of all the ones already annointed by the liberal media, I'd say Frist is the least offensive to me. He'd have to grow a spine before '08 to get my vote, though.
sar- You had me until the last sentence. Do you really think Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are the worst cases, as far as torture is concerned? (Have you been reading TIME Magazine again, sar? :))
I think, if given the option, McCain would've preferred to have captors more like Lynndie England, and less like the North Vietnamese ones.
Oh, and doug, I hope you're not volunteering me to be one of those few thousand extra Americans.
Well, TLM, not if I get to choose 'em.
Doug - Not only do I not believe the right questions were or could be asked on behalf of this administration of bullish egocentrics, I think in many cases, NO questions were asked. I'm hardpressed to find anything constructive that can come from a pyramid of naked Iraqis covered in feces or simulating sex acts on each other while our military posed smiling and pointing for pictures alongside these atrocities. And people wonder why the world regards us a renegade bullies.
TLM - You asked me "Do you really think Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are the worst cases, as far as torture is concerned?" Honestly? From a historial comparative? I don't know. But I do know they represent an aggregious abuse of power in the name of our otherwise stellar military and our nation. Those attrocities should never have happened and should never be allowed to happen again.
Post a Comment
<< Home