[excon]

Hello:

I misspoke the other day when I said John McCain was against waterboarding…….

Actually, I didn't misspeak at all the other day because the other day he WAS against waterboarding. Now, he's for it.

So, he was against it before he was for it……. I don't know. That sounds like…… what's the word??

While the rest of us were obsessing over the 600 possible methods of counting delegates, the Bush administration was busily conducting a PR campaign on behalf of waterboarding.

It began last week. First, Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey told Congress that no one could be investigated or prosecuted for "whatever was done" as part of a covert CIA interrogation program because the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had given its blessing to a bunch of secret "whatevers."

Then CIA Director Michael V. Hayden openly acknowledged, for the first time, that "whatever" had, in fact, included waterboarding, which was used on at least three Al Qaeda suspects.

Did Hayden blush to confess that U.S. intelligence agencies were incapable of getting critical intelligence through means other than torture? Nope. Along with National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell, Hayden suggested that waterboarding might well be handy again in the future.

Now, John McCain, speaking in October 2007, said that waterboarding "is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." Who else would know, but him. He WAS tortured.

But, yesterday the Senate joined the House in passing legislation that prohibits the CIA from using waterboarding or any similar "harsh" interrogation techniques.

Mr. Straight Talk, McCain voted against it.

Huh?

excon

[450donn]

So, we are now left with politely asking the terrorists if they would care to give us information. Of course, if they don't the worst we can do is give them peanut butter sandwiches? Guess we might as well close up shop, and turn this country over to them and then we can all bow down to their form of god 5 times a day. And go back to the stone age, That is what they want!

[excon]

Hello donn:

If you want to waterboard, then do it. You should change the law against it first, though, doncha think?

But, if you're not going to change the law about it, don't change the definition of waterboarding to fit your brand new idea of what's legal. That's stupid. I'm not stupid.

I don't have any problem with waterboarding. I have a problem with people who lie and slime about it. You don't? No, you probably don't. If you're going to torture, stand up and say you're going to torture. Anything wrong with that?

excon

[templelane]

I don't believe information obtained via torture is accurate therefore it is useless. Think about it you'll admit to anything to stop duress. It worked for witch trials. Using methods like this they have wrecked the reliability and validity of any 'confessions' they may have got. How do we actually know they got the right men? The actual terrorist could still be out planning their next attack and we'd be none the wiser. As long as the mob is pacified with suitable scapegoat the ends justify the means?

Maybe they should make the policy makers who want waterboarding to undergo it first? The same way they tazer policemen and pepper spray them (where I live anyway) so they know what it is like to be on the receiving end? Then they can make informed decisions.

[shygrneyzs]

You asked what the word was for it? What about wishy-washy, vacilliating, irresolute, ineffective, wavering, straddled... Take your pick.

I am not for waterboarding either but we are not dealing with the petty thief who stole a loaf of bread. Sometimes principles are applied to people who would not hesitate, for one second, to do worse to us.

[excon]

Hello again:

Clearly, waterboarding sucks. That has been debated here at length.

I really wanted your feedback, however, on the flip-flopper known as the Republican candidate for president.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I don't know ex, I tried finding the darn bill McCain voted against but finding something the feds do is nearly impossible, and when when you do find it, understanding it is even harder. If anyone finds the relevant portion of the bill please explain it.

What I do find doesn't seem inconsistent on McCain's part, it's political opportunism which seems to be all this Democratic congress seems interested in. Even the NY Times admits as much:

Senate Democrats, sensing an opportunity to highlight a policy dispute between the White House and Senator John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, had been hoping that Republicans would make a procedural challenge to the provision on interrogation methods.

McCain's statement on the matter alludes to this also:

The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned – laws that were extensively debated and considered – by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA.

Should we tie the CIA to the Army filed manual? I think not, and I'm convinced this Democratic Congress is using the excuse they previously "erred by deliberately excluding the CIA" to make political hay. They knew damn well what they were doing before, just as many of the same members of Congress shouting torture from the rooftops now knew about this alleged torture years ago and didn't object.

McCain seems to be sticking to his guns to me, the Democrats' morals are just flexing with the political wind.

[George_1950]

I will sleep much sounder tonight knowing that Congress, who oversees the US Postal service, the Veterans Administration, Social Security, and all the rest, is now running interrogations for the CIA.

[speechlesstx]

I will sleep much sounder tonight knowing that Congress, who oversees the US Postal service, the Veterans Administration, Social Security, and all the rest, is now running interrogations for the CIA.

Well, they got a lot out of Mark McGwire and now they're working Clemens over :rolleyes:

[tomder55]

You see ;the Army Field Manual details specific techniques that may be used only. McCain being an experienced person knows that there are non-torture techniques that are not included in the Army manual and being a leader of sound judgement correctly understands that the CIA should not be restricted from using them ;that it makes sense for the CIA to use tactics that are not widely known through the field manual, which is a public document.

This move by the Senate Demoncrats was a slick political ploy to try an drive a wedge between the White House and McCain ;and to attempt to Mittify McCain to discredit him (as excon realized when he posted this ).

In a statement, McCain said the measure goes too far in applying military standards to intelligence agencies and maintained that existing law already forbids waterboarding. "Staging a mock execution by including the misperception of drowning is a clear violation,'' he said.

Intellectual honesty would tell the reader of that statement that this is not a flip flop but a consitent application of his position on the issue.