McCain's cave on torture

It seems like his vote can be reconciled with his earlier statements if you imagine that the CIA has an effective, secret, non-torture interrogation method that is (1) not listed among those in the Army Field Manual, and (2) is not waterboarding. Call it Technique X. The legislation would have prevented the CIA from using Technique X because it is not listed in the Army manual. Therefore the legislation would have unreasonably tied the hands of the CIA, prohibiting it from using or developing any new techniques -- ever.

If they wanted to ban water boarding they could have done just that. This was to tie the army field manual standards to the CIA. McCain doesn't want that. How hard is it to understand that Rod? This is only flip flopping in the eyes of the self righteous.

Rob, I don't have sound so can only go by what you've stated here. In point 2 you don't give very good context to McCain's statement where he praises the Army Field Manual. Considering the debate format, McCain might not have been able to frame his views well.

Here are a few more money quotes.

======Debate======
McCain, in high dudgeon, upbraided Romney for declining to call waterboarding torture, and said that "How anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me."
======Press Release======
And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as “waterboarding” constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.
============

======Debate======
Romney went on to say that his point is that the president shouldn't say which particular techniques he would and wouldn't authorize. McCain shot back, "Then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions... ."
======Press Release======
It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict “serious and non-transitory mental harm,” which the MCA states “need not be prolonged.” Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.
============

Here lies the problem.
======Press Release======
It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.
============

McCain was posturing and gave Romney no wiggle room(I think I saw that debate on TV), but McCain is not flip flopping here. Just switch "Administration" for "Romney" in that last quote.

If we're judging by what McCain said in the debate with Romney, here's the statement I think Rod is concerned about:
"...I just came back from...Iraq and the army general there said the techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively and he didn't think they need to do anything else."

In the context of the overall exchange between Romney and McCain in that video clip, in my opinion it is an over-interpretation of McCain's statement to contend that his position has been that the Army Field Manual is the only standard he'd endorse, with no exceptions. Now if he has made a more explicit statement to that effect elsewhere, never mind -- but on the basis of the debate video, I wouldn't claim that he has "caved." His rationale for his vote makes sense to me, and doesn't cause me to question his consistent and principled stand against inhumane treatment.

"should be good enough for us all."

TR: You, me, or the military is to obey the guidelines in his view. He sees the CIA as different and in need of a different system of rules. They still shouldn't waterboard, but otherwise should be given more leeway in his view. This is, and apparently always was, how he saw it.

Does that make sense to me? Not entirely, but I don't know enough to say I'm right on that. The idea that the CIA is "special" and above bourgeoise morality is something I've heard before. I'm uncomfortable with it, but again this isn't my area of expertise.

as he sees it, an American political exception exists involving torturing Al Qaeda people

I don't see it. McCain just thinks, as Jason said, that there are non-torture techniques that are not listed in the field manual that the CIA should be allowed to use.

Hey, I tried acupuncture for a shoulder injury in the past! Elizabeth--and all others who feel the way Elizabeth does--I mean no disrespect. I simply disagree with you on waterboarding, and I care not a whit that McCain considers it torture.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

John McCain can be elected without winning over the GOP-establishment, which is pro-torture. The conservative elite is pro-torture. Social conservatives a pro-torture. This isn't really that complicated.

What true follower of Jesus could look himself/herself in the eyes and still be in favor of torture?

None that I'm aware of.

if you raise these issues, be prepared to hear heart-felt replies.

Well, here you go Cleveland. If torture is okay, what *wouldn't* you do to protect innocent lives? Do you draw the line anywhere?

Very few people have been tortured and no Americans; that's why it's not a big issue for the American election. Pauli

I used to admire McCain but not so much now because of flip-flops like this. This one isn't new though. It started with his rather meek response when Bush used a signing statement to disregard the anti-torture legislation a couple of years back

On a larger note, I for one can not believe that we are even having this conversation here in the United States. I'd bet that before 9-11 you could show on one hand the percentage of Americans that supported torture. But now, since we were attacked and are scared it's ok when we do it. Talk about moral relativism. And water boarding is torture. From what I've read it is not simulated drowning, it is drowning. It's just stopped before the person actually dies. It is contradictory to claim that it is not that bad and at same time claim it is effective.

Water boarding proponents like to scare us by saying we need it save lives in the case of the mythical ticking bomb scenario. First, if it really is a ticking bomb scenario and the subject really does knows where it's at, what would prevent the terrorist from feeding the interrogators bogus information until the bomb goes off?

Finally, what about the potential lives lost because of water boarding. How many new recruits will the terrorists be able to convince to join their cause because they can make the case that the United States is evil because it tortures people. How many of our allies will refuse to extradite terrorism suspects because of this policy. In the first gulf war, thousands of Iraqis surrendered to U.S. forces because they knew they would be treated well. In the next war, how many enemy soldiers will fight to the death rather than be captured for fear of being tortured. An how many more US soldiers will be killed and injured because of it.

I fail to see the waffling here by McCain.

During the Republican primaries, he denounced torture and insisted that waterboarding was torture -- a position that if anything worked against him politically at that time.

McCain hasn't backed off his previous denunciation of waterboarding or torture in general. He's simply saying now that the CIA shouldn't be bound across the board by legal standards set forth in the Army Field Manual. Those are different questions.

As for McCain's political motivations, nobody in their right mind believes torture/waterboarding will be a salient issue in the fall election. In the unlikely event it became one, McCain gets a free pass on whatever position he takes, because he is one of the very few Americans who has actually been tortured himself.

Simon- The specific legal question here is about torture. We are not talking choice of weapons or uniforms or training protocols. The question is torture. A consistent vote for McCain would have been to oppose it. Suppose the FBI wanted to use torture or my local police. I would expect him to oppose that rather than say something like "I dont want to impose the military's standards". I am unsure about whether I give him a free pass. I respect greatly what he did in Nam. To pass on something that he of all people seemed to have real feelings about and not just a poll based position really kind of looks like playing politics rather than following convictions.

Steve

"would want some evil SOB waterboarded ASAP if the administrator's wife and children were being raped and tortured at a secrete location?"

This is just, wow. Are you having like a flashback to the Dukakis/Bush debate?

Anyone can imagine implausible scenarios that would make a person waiver, but what does that have to do with the reality of terrorism? And besides which why would waterboarding be the best way to make a person divulge their "secrete location."

In any event if a loved one of mine were in a situation like this I don't know that I'd favor waterboarding. I think drugs or trickery would be just as good. Possibly this thing McCain rejected wouldn't even let the CIA use drugs or false claims of torturing relatives. (Finding those two acceptable might mark me as a bit harsher than Rod, I don't know)

Cleveland, I have neither desire nor intention to get caught up in the catechism debate, but there is a basic disconnect here that your writing so far indicates that you do not understand it.

Torture is the infliction of pain -- physical, mental, emotional -- on the victim in order to accomplish some goal important to the torturers. We do not have to judge those goals to see a basic problem with "how it is used" in the context you create.

The point of waterboarding is to convince the victim that he will die. The feeling of panic while asphyxiating is extreme, and there is no rational guard against it. This is why US soldiers at risk for it are subject to it in a training context. They know they are not going to die in training, but the feeling of panic is just as strong. The point is to prepare them mentally for the panic experience.

So, I challenge you to address this: the victims of American waterboarding are not going to get a PC disclosure: we have medical staff standing by, and you will not die. That is patently ridiculous. "I am going to die" is an integral part of the torture's intent. The only other point to such an exercise, given this ridiculous notion of disclosure, is that the torture is for the entertainment of those watching.

If you were being tortured, would you lie to stop it? If you were threatened with painful death, would you lie to prevent it? You can answer that for yourself, but you can't answer it for the prisoners being tortured, and that uncertainty is why torture as a method of acquiring reliable intelligence is suspect at best.

Per Rod: "If I were in that situation, I'd sure want torture to be used. But look, if someone molested my children, I'd want to put a bullet between his eyes. What I desire in a certain situation does not make it right."

Thank you, Rod, for answering the question, even though you had to be forced to do so under threat of steaming hot boudin fumes, and even though you cling to your tortured interpretation of MY Catechism.

"Torture" is not defined therein to encompass what I and millions of others in this country would permit: U.S.-style waterboarding under a time bomb scenario to prevent the murder and maiming of thousands/millions of innocent men, women and children and untold suffering for lifetimes. Contrary to your assertion, the purpose of waterboarding is not to obtain a confession (forbidden by the Catechism); it is to obtain information which would allow the good guys to prevent the bad guys from an obscene act of terrorism that would make 9/11 pale in comparison. Accordingly, you have no grounds to fall back on the Catechism to support your almost suicidal position. You may as well assert that it is torture to give a frightened child a rabies vaccination.

Under the conditions of a just war, proportional defensive actions by a sovereign against an unjust aggressor, with an expectation of success, hardly can be termed wrong. I.E., if the Catechism does not exclude maiming and blowing to bits aggressors on a battlefield to defend our lives, then it obviously does not exclude far, far less forceful means to defend the lives of thousands/millions of innocent non-combatant citizens under narrow circumstances. You won't admit the rationality of that argument, so further debate is pointless with someone who thinks the Catechism models itself on the battle of Snoopy and the Red Baron.

I used the term " Rod's buddy, Saddam" to make light of your public criticism of and refusal to see the necessity of the Iraq war; a war to remove the Mother of All Tortures, who threatened us with the same WOMD he used on his own people and Iran, and who sought nuclear weapons, and who shielded and financed terrorists, and who threatened our country's economic lifeblood in the Gulf, and who for 12 years lied and broke his promises to let the UN freely inspect his weaponry.

I apologize in that you took it seriously. I do not apologize for taking strong exception to the manner in which you joined the gutless wonder, anti-American Democrats to knock the President (the most moral man you will ever live to see in the White House) and my country, and to your seeming obliviousness to potential $100 per gallon gasoline, $50 per gallon milk, etc. Even William F. came around to my point of view.

So, my friend, we will just have to disagree.

UN definition of Torture "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't seem to have a definition, but "severe pain or suffering to obtain information or a confession" seems to be what would fit their section on the Inquisition. Their article is mostly pro-Inquisition, somewhat to my embarrassment. However torture that threatens life or limb was apparently seen as unacceptable to the Medieval Popes.

I guess the question would be whether waterboarding is "severe pain or suffering." In certain cases of respiratory disorders I think it could threaten a life and therefore be verboten by the moral standards of the Roman Inquisition. In other cases I don't know what the verdict is on severity, but if it makes a person believe they're going to die this sounds plausibly severe.

Now whether torture can be justified to get information, it might in some utilitarian way. I just don't quite see how it can be done so morally. I was amenable to the idea that extreme situations might necessitate it, but this doesn't really seem to be enough. For one there's the matter of reliability. Medieval Inquisitor Nicolas Eymeric reportedly declared that torture was deceptive and ineffectual. In fact it was generally done when they already had all needed information and just desired the person to confess. (For repentance or some other reason) Our understanding of psychology and the brain should likely render it obsolete. In addition there is the possible harm to the torturer. Opening up that "door", for whatever reason, is opening up people to the sadistic sides of their nature. The uncertain benefit coupled with the moral danger makes it essentially unjustifiable.

Granted this is speaking in moral terms as I see it. What about seeing it in a secular-nationalist or utilitarian sense? Here things get murkier. Still the extra psychotherapy bills and unreliability of answers might make it unjustified. There's also the hope that they will treat your people the same in response. If you have no such hope than from a secular-nationalist viewpoint the reasoning against it might be weak. After all even if it's unreliable punishing the enemies of the nation and appearing brutal might be in the interest of the nation's power. Therefore waterboarding or other tortures become tolerable. (Hence the biggest hawks on this were secular-nationalists like Giuliani)

BTW: I know this went on too much about the Inquisition, but I can't find my copy of the Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia most mentions torture in contexts of Inquisitors or Christian martyrs.

Franklin, there is no sense replowing old ground with you regarding the "truth" of what "torture" is, so I'll let Rod's words speak for me. In the following quotes from his Sunday DMN article, he was speaking in general terms, not specifically about torture, but I hereby make his words my own about what torture is for different people under different circumstances:

"'Truth is subjectivity,' said Soren Kierkegaard, the Christian existentialist philosopher. His point was not that truth is relative but that the kinds of truths for which a man is willing to live and die can only be known personally. Reason can never be discarded, but ..."

"Maybe that's why 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' is not just a wise maxim, but perhaps the summit of moral wisdom."