Friday, September 12, 2008

On Torture

I just read a very interesting comment on another one of the blogs I read about John McCain and torture. It reads:

"...if McCain accepts the Bush administration definition of torture, he should shut up about his treatment in Vietnam since it wasn't torture by that definition."

An interesting conundrum, no?

Probably not, since conservatives don't rely on facts and truth.

14 comments:

G said...

This is what happens when all one does is parrot the "talking points" about how McCain would be Bush's 3rd term, calling him "McSame," etc. You start to believe it's true.

John McCain has OPPOSED the Bush administration on torture. John McCain is the one who led the charge (a successful one, which really irritated the Bush admin) to attach an anti-torture amendment to a defense appropriations bill last year. John McCain has been VERY clear in his stance against torture. It is such common knowledge and so well documented that I don't need to point to a specific reference. Just google it and you'll probably find thousands of articles and videos.

So no, it isn't a conundrum at all.

BAWDYSCOT said...

All is fair in love, war AND politics, I guess.

csm said...

"Clear in his stance against torture", huh? Well, every bi-pedal homo sapiens falls into that category when asked something like "What is your stance on torture?" But what about actions where you can make a difference?

In the spring of 2005, McCain began the process of formulating legislation to prevent a use of such extreme techniques and some of the sanctioned abuses at Abu Ghraib. Initially, McCain's staff proposed and circulated a bill remarkably similar to the Democratic language McCain now opposes. In a draft proposal, dated May 17, 2005, and obtained by TIME, McCain's staff specifically outlined a plan to make the Army Field Manual "the basis for a uniform standard adhered to by all elements of the United States Government." Another section said that no person under U.S. control could be treated or interrogated with techniques "not authorized by or listed in" the manual. But in the end, after consultation with fellow Senators and others, McCain and his staff did not adopt this draft language.

The compromise McCain helped to lead allows interpretation by Bush administration lawyers on what constitutes torture. Some "maverick" huh?

McSame lovers might want to paint him as a maverick with principles, but he is just another in a long line of unscrupulous liars.

Conundrum? Yes, to those with a brain!

BAWDYSCOT said...

You are really putting a spin on this one csm. You make it worse than it actually is. Here is an excerpt from the article you linked...


"The three Republican senators who opposed a White House version of the bill — Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Warner of Virginia — said the just-announced compromise with the White House met their fundamental requirements by first leaving the provisions of the Geneva Conventions untouched and second, by guaranteeing prisoners facing military tribunals basic rights and fairness. The Bush Administration had favored a watering down of some of those rights."

Now that certainly sounds to me like these three Senators weren't just laying down and giving the Fuck Administration everything they asked Santa for. If you ask me the real culprit in this is Fuck himself, the man who has measured his small cranium for a king's crown, citizen's(and in this case non-citizen's) rights be damned. It is one thing to tarnish McCain's reputation with brushstrokes of complete agreement with the Fuck Administration, but when there is contention with Fuck and McCain ends up on the opposite side, you gotta give him his props or move on to something else. And you know how I feel about McCain, I ain't votin' for him.

csm said...

Can't disagree that Bush and Cheney are incredibly evil.

Can't back off either, though, about a former POW not knocking down walls and laying the smackdown on people to avoid having Uncle Sam torture anyone.

Anony Mouse said...

Thank you G. This thread is such a partisan hack job. I didn't even need to look it up. But then consider the source.

Thomas said...

Obama oops: War injuries prevent McCain from e-mailing
Campaign issued ad today mocking GOP candidate for lack of computer savvy
Posted: September 12, 2008
8:40 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Image from Obama campaign ad
A Barack Obama ad that mocks John McCain for not being able to use a computer and send an e-mail apparently didn't take into account the fact that the Republican presidential nominee can't use a keyboard because of the severe injuries he suffered as a Navy pilot and POW during the Vietnam war.

A Boston Globe report eight years ago cited by the National Review's Jonah Goldberg said McCain's "severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes."

But the Obama campaign ad posted on the Internet today poked fun at McCain for admitting "he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail."

The text of the ad says:

1982. John McCain goes to Washington. Things have changed in the last 26 years. But McCain hasn't. He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class.

After one president who was out of touch, we just can't afford more of the same.

My name is Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

The Globe story noted that after McCain returned from Vietnam he had a physical therapist help him regain flexibility in his leg, which had been frozen in an extended position by a shattered knee. His therapist, Ann Lawrence, said the treatment was excruciatingly painful, but McCain "endured it, he wouldn't settle for less. I have never seen such toughness and resolve."

coreydbarbarian said...

thank you thomas for acknowledging your sources. even if it was the worldnutdaily.

that said, the article was absolute tripe. as in crap. as in worthless.

if i hear mccain or his surrogates blame one more thing on his time as a pow, i might snap. now you want to say he can't navigate a pc because he broke his arm almost 40 years ago? funny, just a month ago, he blamed his fondness for abba (the band) on his former pow status. then, 3 weeks ago, when he couldn't remember how many houses he owned, he blamed that on his time as a pow.

sorry pal, but john mccain is out of touch and clearly does not grasp the role of computers in today's economy. even stephen hawking knows how to check his email, and he's a wee bit more disabled.

BAWDYSCOT said...

Yeah, corey, that was exactly where I was going to go. There is no excuse for any Senator or Representative and especially a President who does not know the rudiments to the electronic modern age. I have admitted my deficencies in this area, but I can certainly converse through this medium to a degree most are happy with. To have a total lack of proficency is inexcusable.

Anony Mouse said...

Um um um, NoBama still just doesn’t get it. Actually, I would bet McCain DOES know how to send email but why should he? Hopefully he is dealing with important issues. The essence of the ad is that McCain is old and old things just aren’t cool. But something that Obama obviously didn’t consider is that old people hold grudges, especially when a young elitist spits in their faces. These are the very people that will send him back to Illinois in November. Obama is the guy who couldn’t get the hugely hyped Magic Text Message on the Biden announcement right. I don’t see internet savvy as all that important. That is why we have IT departments. To set the record straight, McCain didn’t use his nam injuries as an excuse. I think he has simply ignored it. Good move.

I'm not much younger than McCain and have my own struggles as this evidences.

coreydbarbarian said...

and speaking of torture...
watch this video.

there are more videos at the site. suddenly, religion seems relevant to the sarah palin discussion.

Anony Mouse said...

This is relevant. There was no hate speech, aids conspiracies or hate for America. I didn't hear anyone even damning America. Thanks Corey I hadn't seen any of this.

Peace & Love. I miss the hippies even though I couldn't take up the lifestyle.

coreydbarbarian said...

now don't go blaming the hippies for that pentacostal wackiness. the pentacostalists sprang up in the 20's or 30's, a full generation (or two) before the hippie movement.

and yes, mouse, i know you're being playful. but if that video put you in the mind of "peace & love", you must've missed the advert for their "worship & warfare conference" starting on 9/22.

i've been reading a book by karen armstrong called "the battle for god: a history of fundamentalism". it's a great book, very insightful. one thing i picked up on was the fact that the evangelicals initially shunned the pentacostalists, and vice versa, back in the 20's & 30's. it was only as a response to the cultural shifts of the 60's that the fundamentalist movements started to mobilize, and merge.

if you want, i could bring you links to various zionist affiliations tied to the wasilla church for your required hate speech, conspiracy theories and damning of america. also, i could provide links to that alaska secession group if need be.

honestly, though, i don't really enjoy that sort of research. i'm more into origins, causation and system studies.

Anony Mouse said...

Thanks for the offer Corey but I'm really not into that. People are free to worship as they see fit and is none of my concern unless they violate the law.