![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumNot that this was news to much of anyone.
But John McCain, the slimy little-fuck, whom I called a spineless git for making torture possible, is now making his support for it more obvious.
See, while I was at drill this past week; keeping the world safe for democracy, Bush vetoed a bill, in no small part because it would limit the CIA (and other gov't agencies) to the same rules under which the Army has to operate.
Forget (if you can) that Antonin Scalia thinks torture is a good thing (against the dictates of his faith; though I don't see anyone saying his fondness for saying torture is good disqualfies him for communion, the way Kerry's unwillingness to impose his faith on the rest of of was said to disqualify him, but I digress).
Forget (if you can) that Michael Chertoff, the head of Homland Security thinks "24" is a good show because "Obviously, it's a very well-made and very well-acted show, and very exciting. And the premise of a 24-hour period is a novel and, I think, very intriguing premise. But I thought that there was one element of the shows that at least I found very thought-provoking, and I suspect, from talking to people, others do as well...
I think when people watch the show, it provokes a lot of thinking about what would you do if you were faced with this set of unpalatable alternatives, and what do you do when you make a choice and it turns out to be a mistake because there was something you didn't know. I think that, the lesson there, I think is an important one we need to take to heart. It's very easy in hindsight to go back after a decision and inspect it and examine why the decision should have been taken in the other direction. But when you are in the middle of the event, as the characters in "24" are, with very imperfect information and with very little time to make a decision, and with the consequences very high on a wrong decision, you have to be willing to make a decision recognizing that there is a risk of mistake."
Forget all that. Because, while important, it's piddly-shit.
This administration believes in torture, but what of the next administration?
Clinton and Obama have said theyd'd be against it. Obama's record shows that when faced with questions of institutional misbehavior, he not only wants to stop it, but to make sure it is dealt with structurally.
John McCain, however, ought to be head and shoulders above the two of them. He was actually tortured in Vietnam. He knows what it's like, and he knows how ineffective it is.
But he's supported the administration in making torture possible, and he supported Bush in vetoing this bill.
Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy director for McCain's campaign, denied any inconsistency between the senator's record and his position on the bill.
"It's not about waterboarding and it's not about torture," Scheunemann said.
He said McCain opposed the bill for the same reason he exempted the CIA from his 2005 legislation: his belief that the agency should not be limited to methods spelled out in a public Army manual.
McCain feels "it's a good thing that (the CIA can use) enhanced interrogation techniques that are not revealed in your newspaper," Scheunemann said. He declined to identify methods that McCain believes should remain available to the CIA while being off-limits to military interrogators.
The Army's methods work. Torture, despite the special pleadings and prettily built fairy-tales of apologists, doesn't. As a means of collecting reliable information torture is (quite apart from being immoral, which ought to prevent the conversation from even coming up) innefective, to the point of being useless.
McCain, for whatever reasons, doesn't care.
Jesus asked For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36). McCain is willing to do it, in the hope it will win the votes of the people who, like Scalia and Chertoff, think pointing guns at people's heads, and hooking electrodes to them will get "The Truth".
I turn my back on them, and clap the dust from my sandals.
But John McCain, the slimy little-fuck, whom I called a spineless git for making torture possible, is now making his support for it more obvious.
See, while I was at drill this past week; keeping the world safe for democracy, Bush vetoed a bill, in no small part because it would limit the CIA (and other gov't agencies) to the same rules under which the Army has to operate.
Forget (if you can) that Antonin Scalia thinks torture is a good thing (against the dictates of his faith; though I don't see anyone saying his fondness for saying torture is good disqualfies him for communion, the way Kerry's unwillingness to impose his faith on the rest of of was said to disqualify him, but I digress).
Forget (if you can) that Michael Chertoff, the head of Homland Security thinks "24" is a good show because "Obviously, it's a very well-made and very well-acted show, and very exciting. And the premise of a 24-hour period is a novel and, I think, very intriguing premise. But I thought that there was one element of the shows that at least I found very thought-provoking, and I suspect, from talking to people, others do as well...
I think when people watch the show, it provokes a lot of thinking about what would you do if you were faced with this set of unpalatable alternatives, and what do you do when you make a choice and it turns out to be a mistake because there was something you didn't know. I think that, the lesson there, I think is an important one we need to take to heart. It's very easy in hindsight to go back after a decision and inspect it and examine why the decision should have been taken in the other direction. But when you are in the middle of the event, as the characters in "24" are, with very imperfect information and with very little time to make a decision, and with the consequences very high on a wrong decision, you have to be willing to make a decision recognizing that there is a risk of mistake."
Forget all that. Because, while important, it's piddly-shit.
This administration believes in torture, but what of the next administration?
Clinton and Obama have said theyd'd be against it. Obama's record shows that when faced with questions of institutional misbehavior, he not only wants to stop it, but to make sure it is dealt with structurally.
John McCain, however, ought to be head and shoulders above the two of them. He was actually tortured in Vietnam. He knows what it's like, and he knows how ineffective it is.
But he's supported the administration in making torture possible, and he supported Bush in vetoing this bill.
Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy director for McCain's campaign, denied any inconsistency between the senator's record and his position on the bill.
"It's not about waterboarding and it's not about torture," Scheunemann said.
He said McCain opposed the bill for the same reason he exempted the CIA from his 2005 legislation: his belief that the agency should not be limited to methods spelled out in a public Army manual.
McCain feels "it's a good thing that (the CIA can use) enhanced interrogation techniques that are not revealed in your newspaper," Scheunemann said. He declined to identify methods that McCain believes should remain available to the CIA while being off-limits to military interrogators.
The Army's methods work. Torture, despite the special pleadings and prettily built fairy-tales of apologists, doesn't. As a means of collecting reliable information torture is (quite apart from being immoral, which ought to prevent the conversation from even coming up) innefective, to the point of being useless.
McCain, for whatever reasons, doesn't care.
Jesus asked For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36). McCain is willing to do it, in the hope it will win the votes of the people who, like Scalia and Chertoff, think pointing guns at people's heads, and hooking electrodes to them will get "The Truth".
I turn my back on them, and clap the dust from my sandals.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-11 10:21 am (UTC)You basically sum up why I could never, ever vote for McCain.
And 24 is a f*cking TV show, for f*ck's sake! Of course Jack Bauer is successful - he has these allies known as writers.
DV
Or Clinton
Date: 2008-03-11 02:19 pm (UTC)So, I said: Okay, lets see something they both had the chance to vote on.
And I came up with this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html).
I guess her caring about children doesn't extend to ones with almond eyes, or dark skin or...
no subject
Date: 2008-03-11 02:22 pm (UTC)You know, most people who have fought in wars never want to do so again.
As well, most who have been captured and or tortured NEVER want to put anyone through that.
McCain must be sick or worse.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-11 02:49 pm (UTC)Forget (if you can) that Antonin Scalia thinks torture is a good thing (against the dictates of his faith; though I don't see anyone saying his fondness for saying torture is good disqualfies him for communion, the way Kerry's unwillingness to impose his faith on the rest of of was said to disqualify him, but I digress).
I'd like to add you to my friends list if you don't mind. I am moved by the thoughtfulness and power of your recent posts.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-11 03:34 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2008-03-11 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-11 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 12:18 am (UTC)What part of his record says that?
I'm not asking in an "oh yeah prove it" way, I'm asking in an "I am genuinely ignorant of this fact, please tell me more" way.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 12:52 am (UTC)He could have followed the Bush path, and said, "Oh, this is horrid. It's terrible that rogue cops do bad things, but we don't condone it. When we find out about it, we will punish them."
He didn't. He worked to change the way things were done in a way which increased transparency, and encouraged both good behavior, and faith in the system.
Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.
Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
Obama had his work cut out for him.
He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."
The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.
By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.
Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
On other issues which are in the progressive vein, he worked, and got passed, some interesting legislation (in what might be a predictive way). was a key figure in requiring a massive statewide study of traffic stops by police to look for signs of racial profiling. Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.
Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.
He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor.
Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 04:31 am (UTC)No one was terribly concerned about it. Obviously, the importance of recording interrogations is vastly overrated.</irony>
Usual disagreements
Date: 2008-03-19 04:39 am (UTC)I've already made my case in an open letter here (http://karl-lembke.livejournal.com/159576.html). I also make note of a case where the threat of torture elicited the location of a 11-year-old kidnap victim from the kidnapper within minutes. Commentary and link to the NY Times piece can be found here. (http://karl-lembke.livejournal.com/167722.html)
I know you've instructed your readers to ignore what I have to say, but some people might be interested in what's at the other end of these links.