Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
McCain Votes FOR Waterboarding Torture
thinkprogress.org — When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding today.
satyam02- 2274 diggs
- digg it
- hawkeye17, on 02/14/2008, -22/+130Another shady Republican who's ethics change with the political winds. I'm shocked.
- withincontext, on 02/14/2008, -8/+28Does this mean he has to apologize to the "gooks" since he's now sympathetic to torture? Or, as he said, will they always be "gooks"? Wait, are we "gooks" now because we torture? Ooooh, right, it only counts when it's the other guys.
Yeah, I can see how we're making the world safer for Americans. /facepalm - franklymister, on 02/14/2008, -2/+64He's not just another shady Republican. This is much bigger than your average political flip-flop.
McCain has always stood against torture, with a moral stance that was unassailable. If anyone disagreed with his stance, all he had to do was remind them that he himself had been tortured as a prisoner.
He's just sold his soul - his entire Vietnam experience has just been nullified, now that he's decided to subject others to the same inhumane treatment.- elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -2/+19He sold out after the 2000 election. It was sad watching him kiss the Presidents ass after the smear job Dubayah and Rove pulled on during the 2000 primary.
- PeppermintPig, on 02/14/2008, -0/+7Maybe they threatened torture him if he didn't comply?
/looking for reasons to justify why McCain appears to have lost his freaking mind. got nothing - mightydavefish, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3That was an absolutely disgusting time.
With all the dirty tricks and trash talk about him the GOP did, and then he ***** sucks the crap right out of their asses and calls it ice cream.
I can't BELIEVE I used to respect this guy.
Amazing how low the character of so many has fallen during the reign of Bush.
This is the GOP.
- PeppermintPig, on 02/14/2008, -0/+7Maybe they threatened torture him if he didn't comply?
- diadem2, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2holy political suicide, batman
- mightydavefish, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1We can only wish.
Sadly there are many many many ignorant people in America, and he panders to them.
- mightydavefish, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1We can only wish.
- elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -2/+19He sold out after the 2000 election. It was sad watching him kiss the Presidents ass after the smear job Dubayah and Rove pulled on during the 2000 primary.
- dagnome1984, on 02/14/2008, -22/+3http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obamabankruptcy_ ...
- arcticblue, on 02/14/2008, -2/+6How many times are you going to spam that submission? Almost the entire first page of your comment history is comment spam.
- dagnome1984, on 02/14/2008, -17/+3If obama nuts didn't burry every bit of criticism than I wouldn't have the need to.
- mightydavefish, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1So you whine about it where it's not appropriate?
***** off, dumbass.
- mightydavefish, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1So you whine about it where it's not appropriate?
- dagnome1984, on 02/14/2008, -17/+3If obama nuts didn't burry every bit of criticism than I wouldn't have the need to.
- nicholai, on 02/14/2008, -2/+4Looks like I will be voting Libertarian again.
- mightydavefish, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Yeah, that's really helping the country.
But at least you'll be able to say you didn't vote for a Dem or Republican, right?
Hey, kudos on finding a way to weasel out of your responsibility to help make things better.
You know pissing your vote away helps NO ONE but you.
It's an ego stroke.- nicholai, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Voting for the "lesser evil" will never improve anything.
- mightydavefish, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Yeah, that's really helping the country.
- arcticblue, on 02/14/2008, -2/+6How many times are you going to spam that submission? Almost the entire first page of your comment history is comment spam.
- CthulhuDawn, on 02/14/2008, -1/+9I was actually considering voting for McCain IF Hillary got the nomination because of his stance against torture. What the ***** McCain...
- SHv2, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3You too huh? What a messed up election this has turned into. No one can get anything straight. He just lost a lot of people's votes with that smart move.
That may have just opened the door for Obama hands down...- Inquisition, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Actually, He might have pulled more voters to him. McCain ~might~ have pulled some swing votes before, but would have lost many votes, and the support of his own base. Without those he would lose for sure in this very close GOP race.
- SHv2, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3You too huh? What a messed up election this has turned into. No one can get anything straight. He just lost a lot of people's votes with that smart move.
- trumpetmn, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2I'm not.
- spvo, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0He voted against a bill that, in addition to other things, banned waterboarding. He has always spoken about how waterboarding is torture. So, for him to vote this down, I would imagine there were more elements of the bill he did not approve of. In any case, this doesn't mean his ethics have changed.
- BobOki, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1One must HAVE ethics to stand against them.
- Fludd777, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1I feel like a bad person but I would still vote McCain over Hillary.
- BobOki, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1He voted "no" becuase if he makes pres, we will be attacking those, how did he put it? Oh yeah, "gooks" and we will tourture the ***** out of them.
This mans ambitions are so transparent, I don't even see him as a candidate. - Baldar, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0Why a shady Republican? I think you meant to say another shady politician. Democrats and Republians are all the same on that aspect. Obama, Hillary, Huckabee, McCain - All shady, all crooks, none in your best interest.
And if you don't believe it, I've got some oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you.
- withincontext, on 02/14/2008, -8/+28Does this mean he has to apologize to the "gooks" since he's now sympathetic to torture? Or, as he said, will they always be "gooks"? Wait, are we "gooks" now because we torture? Ooooh, right, it only counts when it's the other guys.
- frankwit, on 02/14/2008, -12/+113Flip-Flop
- Swordman554, on 02/14/2008, -2/+20This man was tortured, he should know what it is like, and yet he still votes to pass it? Yeah, that is one hell of a flip flop. Man of principles, bah...
- zolaar, on 02/14/2008, -3/+1Drip-Drop
- WillisRR17, on 02/14/2008, -11/+0Only 48273947 more flip-flops until he catches John Kerry. Heehee.
- nicholai, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4fail
- WillisRR17, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0bitch
Liberals can't take jokes. It's really disconcerting.
PS I recognize that you are a Libertarian. Ron Paul is the man.
- WillisRR17, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0bitch
- jesuswuzanalien, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Don't you mean 4,294,967,296?
- WillisRR17, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0Of course, please excuse the typo.
- nicholai, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4fail
- Sogui, on 02/14/2008, -6/+2“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,”
“People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”
He had JUST said this stuff, he's not flip flopping... this is a large and complex bill that is destined to fail due to a promised White House Veto and the Senate knows it doesn't have enough votes to break the veto.
Don't assume he's pro-waterboarding because he voted on a HUGE bill with one last minute water boarding provision. - Spudster, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3I love how that term is coming to bite the Republicans in the ass.
- jesuswuzanalien, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2John Cocaine-McCain is just ***** crazy and everyone know he was really born in *****.
- AshScholl, on 02/14/2008, -16/+133Is anyone surprised? In order to get the republican nomination, he has to prove how crazy he is.
- ricree, on 02/14/2008, -2/+5He already has the nomination locked. I don't see what he had to gain by toeing the line on this bill.
- elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -0/+7He's got to convince the Republican voters that he's "conservative" enough (whatever that means anymore) in order to win a general election.
- cphoover, on 02/14/2008, -2/+2thats exactly why hes doing this.
personally i still dont think he has a change against either Barack or Hillary because he is against banning abortion and gay marriage- SHv2, on 02/14/2008, -2/+1*shrugs* nothing wrong with being against banning those...
- cphoover, on 02/14/2008, -2/+2thats exactly why hes doing this.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1He's making nice with the nutty right of the party...
- Inquisition, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1He's toeing the line, because he still has to win the presidential election. He will need every last republican vote to even have a chance to beat a Democrat. Even that bitch Ann Coulter has said that if McCaine gets the nomination she would vote for Hillary. Talk about hell freezing over!
- elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -0/+7He's got to convince the Republican voters that he's "conservative" enough (whatever that means anymore) in order to win a general election.
- Mist0r_Wiggles, on 02/14/2008, -8/+2Dude, like I would totally for him now, man. It's like woah, that took some balls, Dude.
- WillisRR17, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4Yeah bro, this dude is one crazy brah, man. You wanna go chill and smoke a doobie, dude?
- FluffyWolf, on 02/14/2008, -1/+6Yes, I am surprised, I have previously told people that while he is a warmonger (and probably the worst of the republican bunch) he is at least against torture and intends to close the prison camps at Guantanamo. So in my book, McCain now went from being one of the worst republican candidates together with Romney and Giuliani to being the truly worst candidate and that without competition.
I wonder if he still wishes to close the prison camps at Guantanamo?- asskey, on 02/14/2008, -1/+3We'll hear in the debates during the general elections. My guess is he reverses back to his old views to win independents back as soon as he has the conservative support again.
- Sogui, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Here's what I said below. Even the radical right hasn't attacked him for his torture stance, nobody would ever attacked tortured POW for his anti-torture stance.
It makes no logical sense why a champion of the anti-torture movement would vote for water boarding. The simplest explanation? We are presented almost no details on the bill or why McCain voted against it, the simplest reason... like every other "OMG X VOTED Y" submission is that he voted against it for some other reasons and sites like ThinkProgress.com refuse to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.- Ruqsaq, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1I agree... I hate this one side to every story sensationalism... truth is he was probably voting FOR something really good and someone slipped in some water boarding crap into the bill. This is why I'm FOR line item veto... which the Dems (and unfortunately alot of Reps) are not.
That or he doesn't consider waterboarding torture. I mean looking back McCain might think waterboarding would have been a cake walk to what he went through....- Inquisition, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1"this is why I'm FOR line item veto... which the Dems (and unfortunately alot of Reps) are not."
The only reason that Republicans aren't against the line item veto is that there is a republican in the White House that can blame congress when a bill loaded with pork gets passed. If the President had the power to veto only certain parts of the bill, and did nothing, he would be to blame. How many times have you heard that the President "reluctantly" signed a bill and complained about the pork that was included? It is a win-win situation if he can let an unpopular spending package (for example) get passed because the good parts outweigh the bad pork that was included.
- Inquisition, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1"this is why I'm FOR line item veto... which the Dems (and unfortunately alot of Reps) are not."
- FluffyWolf, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Here is a quote from him, and I agree that it makes no sense, he is flip-flopping in the middle of the sentence:
"We always supported allowing the CIA to use extra measures," McCain said. "I believe waterboarding is illegal and should be banned."
So waterboarding should be illegal, but not for the CIA, cause they are special?
I'm sure your average police officer in any generic fascist country didn't use torture either and that it was only the secret police that used it, so there seems to be no difference to McCains policy and your average pro-torture advocate in any country and age.
Some context of the quote.
"Senator John McCain, the leading Republican presidential candidate and former prisoner of war who opposes harsh interrogation tactics, voted against the bill. McCain said that the ban would limit the CIA's ability to gather intelligence but that his vote was consistent with his firm stance against torture.
"We always supported allowing the CIA to use extra measures," McCain said. "I believe waterboarding is illegal and should be banned.""
From http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/14/america/int ...
Do you have a saner quote from him?
- Ruqsaq, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1I agree... I hate this one side to every story sensationalism... truth is he was probably voting FOR something really good and someone slipped in some water boarding crap into the bill. This is why I'm FOR line item veto... which the Dems (and unfortunately alot of Reps) are not.
- ricree, on 02/14/2008, -2/+5He already has the nomination locked. I don't see what he had to gain by toeing the line on this bill.
- Insightful, on 02/14/2008, -10/+62McCain is about the swiftboated... by himself.
- mommacat, on 02/14/2008, -10/+66Maybe his fellow republicans waterboarded him into it. Theyre funny that way
- mentok, on 02/14/2008, -2/+3Nah, he's had worse. It is a bit of a surprising flip though, coming from the guy who has actually been tortured.
- socketman, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0Now discomfort is torture? Might as well sign up all the prisoners to get some new lazyboys
- mentok, on 02/14/2008, -2/+3Nah, he's had worse. It is a bit of a surprising flip though, coming from the guy who has actually been tortured.
- rz8472, on 02/14/2008, -8/+34The Straight Talk Express has officially become the Goitermobile.
- 12Bo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah is that a goiter on his face? I am not sure just asking.
- Lyk4n, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2It's the Traitermobile..
- icemorebutts, on 02/14/2008, -8/+92"John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it." Best line of the whole thing.
- Sogui, on 02/14/2008, -2/+2Or how about:
JOHN MCCAIN IS AGAINST TELECOM IMMUNITY. This was a large and complex bill, with many reasons to vote against it (this is the telecom bill too, and the intelligence services appropriations bill), McCain deserves the benefit of the doubt here since there is... a lot of doubt.- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Benefit of the doubt != suspension of disbelief.
- 1town, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3Hey, John McCain has experienced torture first-hand, and if he says it's cool to torture, it's ***** cool.
Maybe his memory is just fading with age, he's starting to think it wasn't that bad after all..
- Sogui, on 02/14/2008, -2/+2Or how about:
- MassRoadKill, on 02/14/2008, -14/+50McCain's capitulation to the rabid-right is so sad. Seriously. What a scum bag. How can I feel sorry for the guy's experience in Vietnam (being tortured while being a POW) when he now supports torture. This is the problem with the Republicans, and by extension the whole country, they/we have lost our moral authority. We cannot go around declaring war on "terrorists" and then act like them ourselves.
- hittnrun, on 02/14/2008, -24/+1Look dude, I'll buy you three kewl tunes if you stop posting nonsense..Deal??
Oh, OK, I'll throw in a dimebag if you'll just run along.
The terrorists and the DNC appreciate your continued support.
Please move to THEIR side of the world and stay off OUR internet.- dildoolielly, on 02/14/2008, -3/+5DON'T CONFUSE THE WILL TO FIGHT
with no will to fight unjust war, no will for torture and no will for evil.
Indeed, Repubicans start an unjust war based on lies causing terrorism to sky-rocket and then blame everyone else for their evil.
Make no mistake, there is no greater evil, no greater sin than unjust war, Bush and his Republican henchmen prove that point every hour of every day in Iraq.- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -2/+1I dugg you down cause you tried to blame the republicans for something the democrats helped them do. The vote was 77 for and 23 against in the senate, 296 for to 133 against in the house. Just under half the democrats in the house voted for the war.
In short I dugg you down for being sheep. Stop pretending that your favorite party is some how immune to blame for their mistakes.- dildoolielly, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Same old argument with you idiots. Jesus Christ, are you still regurgitating that *****?! Unbelievable!
Why are facts and Cons like oil and water?
The senate did not vote for war, it voted for authorization for war, if proof was found, and if all other options were gone. that's not quite how it happened, was it? And 'believing' that saddam had weapons isn't even close to invading and killing untold thousands, or are you such a bush lover that you don't see that?
oh, and no matter what the russians and the french may have given iraq, can you admit what WE gave them? can you say, chemical and biological weapons, hand delivered by rummy?
or are you in denial, because facts don't coincide with bush's rewriting of history....
- dildoolielly, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Same old argument with you idiots. Jesus Christ, are you still regurgitating that *****?! Unbelievable!
- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -2/+1I dugg you down cause you tried to blame the republicans for something the democrats helped them do. The vote was 77 for and 23 against in the senate, 296 for to 133 against in the house. Just under half the democrats in the house voted for the war.
- dildoolielly, on 02/14/2008, -3/+5DON'T CONFUSE THE WILL TO FIGHT
- Bakrain, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4http://vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/War_Se ...
"Songbird" as he was known by his fellow POW's was NOT tortured, his wounds came from crashing his Navy jet (1 of 5 that he crashed). - BobOki, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1It was also stated by MANY military, (all of which here HATE HIM), becuase he was a sell-out while in the camps. A POW turncoat if you will, kinda like the jews that joined the nazi party just to "get by". This man has TONS of issue, anger management, racism, and more. Search his name and "gooks" in google see what you pull up.
- hittnrun, on 02/14/2008, -24/+1Look dude, I'll buy you three kewl tunes if you stop posting nonsense..Deal??
- moin1097, on 02/14/2008, -69/+11Buried as inaccurate.
Waterboarding isn't torture. No amount of repeating that lie will make it a truth.- hawkeye17, on 02/14/2008, -3/+60***** off. Tell that to the American prisoners of war who were tortured by the Japanese with waterboarding. Those Japanese that did the waterboarding of our troops were hung by the US after the war. And burying this as inaccurate is childish as all hell...grow up Moin.
- moin1097, on 02/14/2008, -30/+4Waterboarding was mild when compared with the real torture they endured.
And I can only bury it as inaccurate since digg doesn't have a "buried as liberal clap-trap" category.- cphoover, on 02/14/2008, -0/+5hahaha real torture yes like strapping electrodes to ones testicles psychological torture, or maybe strapping them down to a board and pouring water down their throat or .. wait...
- rawrzzz, on 02/14/2008, -4/+1I might get dug down, but...
The Japanese were probably hung for war crimes, but torturing a terrorist in order to save thousands of lives is different.
Of course, I strongly condemn waterboarding innocent civilians in order to obtain nothing. I support waterboarding terrorists caught in the act, though.- hfactor, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3So you caught him in the act and then you waterboard him. What do you think he´s gonna tell you to make you stop? The truth or just everything he thinks you might want to hear? Thought so.
- Spudster, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3Keep in mind that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. In the eyes of those Japanese, American soldiers were terrorists responsible for the death of thousands of Japanese. Under Japanese logic, torturing an American soldier for crucial intelligence to prevent the death of thousands of Japanese soldiers made total sense.
Stop the hypocrisy by trying to claim Islamic fundamentals are any different. - roodammy44, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2It's not different.
They were about to be hit by a weapon of mass destruction (nukes) and needed information out of troops.
America used to represent the good values in the world like human rights, a fair trial and no torture. It seems your country has forgotton what it once stood for.
Now you're just as bad as the terrorists, in the world's eyes.
- moin1097, on 02/14/2008, -30/+4Waterboarding was mild when compared with the real torture they endured.
- triplehelix, on 02/14/2008, -3/+34then why did we execute japanese for doing it to allied forces?
- moin1097, on 02/14/2008, -22/+4We didn't you brain dead moron. We executed them for the classics. Bamboo under the fingernails, branding irons, crushing testicles, etc.
Waterboarding wasn't nearly as bad as some of the more creative ways of real torture. Try asking someone that has been through it or someone that knows someone. Don't rely on what your handlers tell you. Because they will lie to you.- dagnome1984, on 02/14/2008, -2/+9The funny thing is the government has been granted permission to do any of those things. Even to American citizens if it so chooses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt1-eWU2Ii0&feature ... - elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -0/+8We didn't execute any of them for it, but we did sentence several to ~8 years in hard labor for it. The charges even specifically defined waterboarding as "water torture".
- dagnome1984, on 02/14/2008, -2/+9The funny thing is the government has been granted permission to do any of those things. Even to American citizens if it so chooses.
- moin1097, on 02/14/2008, -22/+4We didn't you brain dead moron. We executed them for the classics. Bamboo under the fingernails, branding irons, crushing testicles, etc.
- ashnbell, on 02/14/2008, -2/+17"I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture," the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08520616 ...- moin1097, on 02/14/2008, -18/+4"U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
Yea, the un is a good source for anything humane.
And alternet is a good link. Next time, why not just link to the du? It's just as reliable and unbiased. LOL.- ashnbell, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1sorry, you've lost me.... you seem to have concluded that i have some kind of affinity for the institution whose official quote and the website that i used for the source of that quote.
Didn't cross your mind for a second that i might have been trying to point out to the "water boarding isn't torture" fella that he was on his own with that opinion because even the "child rapist UN" say they draw the line at water boarding?
As for the choice of site.... i picked it from the list of links that google chucked up for me on the basis that it the first one i came to that i reckoned the "water boarding isn't torture" fella wouldn't see as naturally biased against his point of view.
Anyway, cheers for the enlightening analysis of what you inferred my meaning to be - quite a rant considering i didn't actually say one word about the quote i posted.
- ashnbell, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1sorry, you've lost me.... you seem to have concluded that i have some kind of affinity for the institution whose official quote and the website that i used for the source of that quote.
- socketman, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0The UN is a worthless organization for so many reasons it isn't even funny. It is a travesty that we are even still in the UN
- moin1097, on 02/14/2008, -18/+4"U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children"
- dukeeeey, on 02/14/2008, -2/+24if waterboarding wasn't torture
there would be no point in doing it- brycelb, on 02/14/2008, -15/+3Beautiful logic. I guess we have to talk real nice to them and make sure they feel super cause if making their interrogation uncomfortable and miserable is not torture then there is no point in doing it.
- Dumbledorito, on 02/14/2008, -1/+15Professional interrogators will indeed tell you that your eventual goal is to establish trust, and the intel/info you get is much more reliable. Given that "witches" confessed to putting the evil eye on kids or withering crops with Satan's help when you held them under water long enough, it's not surprising that information obtained via torture is worth about as much as studying Woody Woodpecker cartoons to learn about avian biology.
- brycelb, on 02/14/2008, -15/+3Beautiful logic. I guess we have to talk real nice to them and make sure they feel super cause if making their interrogation uncomfortable and miserable is not torture then there is no point in doing it.
- jgzman, on 02/14/2008, -1/+10Repeating lies until they are truth seems to be the Republican MO.
- Spudster, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1My question is.. if you knew that the only way to make a terrorist talk is to torture his innocent girlfriend that he cares about... should you do so? I mean, under the current logic, the lives of the many outweigh the lives of a few...
- Akufen, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2There is no "current logic", only a current state of fear.
Any question that contains "should we torture" should always, under ANY circumstance be answered with a resounding NO. Why the ***** is this even up for discussion? Humanity has been set back 400 years by a monkey in a suit, and we deserve it for letting it happen.
- Akufen, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2There is no "current logic", only a current state of fear.
- Bilabrin, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Torture:
"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 point of Waterboarding is to cause the victim to lose control by bringing out the panic instinct by simulating drowning. This panic response is the same one you will hear about if you ever take lifegaurding classes. A person drowning in this state can drown the rescuer by pushinging you down underwater in an attempt to keep afloat. It is recomended that persons in this state be incapacitated and pulled ashore. The point is that it is actually a way to cause someone to flip out and lose rationality. And yes, I would classify this as "severe suffering".
Disagree? Okay see how long you can hold your breath and then have a friend hold your head underwater for 20 seconds longer than your best time. I'll bet when you are the guy being dunked, your tune will change. - GhostyBoy, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Sorry for my lack of an intelligent and well-thought out response but ***** YOU YOU IGNORANT HEARTLESS PIECE OF *****.
- socketman, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0What kind of argument is that? It proves what - that you're profane, illogical, irrational, emotional, and think that a terrorist's comfort is more important than innocent lives.
Sorry, but I don't think your big forgiving heart towards terrorists is going to do much good.
Maybe you're ignorant tune will change if we elect Obama or Clinton and another terrorist attack happens. One that may have been prevented, but sadly waterboarding was outlawed. Because you know, terrorists are only here to kill us, the least we can do is make sure they experience no discomfort. If/when that happens, and you lose someone close to you - re-evaluate your baseless emotional principles
All you anti- torture, anti war, bleeding heart liberals just love to sling random insults, yet your lack of rationale is going to get a lot of people killed someday.
- socketman, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0What kind of argument is that? It proves what - that you're profane, illogical, irrational, emotional, and think that a terrorist's comfort is more important than innocent lives.
- hawkeye17, on 02/14/2008, -3/+60***** off. Tell that to the American prisoners of war who were tortured by the Japanese with waterboarding. Those Japanese that did the waterboarding of our troops were hung by the US after the war. And burying this as inaccurate is childish as all hell...grow up Moin.
- odiego, on 02/14/2008, -10/+38He also hates the "gooks"..
- pimpofpixels, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4Yeah. I wouldn't see our negotiations with north Korea going real well with McCain in office.
- BobOki, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1You kidding? Thats our first focal point for attack. He has already stated as much.
Any man that cannot put aside hios own personal vendettas as president, is not fit to be so.
- Stevanoski, on 02/14/2008, -21/+8Well, now just maybe, he does have some redeeming qualities after all. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet eh?
- Smoove, on 02/14/2008, -3/+3Dugg you up on the assumption you're being ironic.
- rficwizard, on 02/14/2008, -3/+5Oops, I buried him assuming he wasn't. I keep missing sarcasm because I am used to people saying stupid things.
- dildoolielly, on 02/14/2008, -6/+2Hey, GTFO! No, really. GET THE ***** OUT! Off and on for 40 years we have watched you war-mongering assholes ramp up military expansion, increase deficits, and sabre rattle in preparation for a war that NO ONE IN THE ***** WORLD WANTS! You assholes have done more damage than you even know in the anticipation that someone else would bruise your ***** ego.
GET SOME ***** BALLS AND LEARN TO LEAD WITH YOUR CHIN INSTEAD OF YOUR DICK.
Nothing I hate more than pussies with guns. Seriously.
By the way, what happens when two peaceniks have a conflict over policy? They talk. What happens when two warmongers have a conflict over policy? They point guns at each other.
Fvcking pussies
- Smoove, on 02/14/2008, -3/+3Dugg you up on the assumption you're being ironic.
- JigoroKano, on 02/14/2008, -6/+63And that was the sound of McCain's last ounce of integrity evaporating into the aether.
- ronaldinho, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Another reason I'm going with Obama of all the candidates remaining
- franklymister, on 02/14/2008, -5/+47Unbelievable.
Will every principle he ever held go out the window? He has always stood against torture based on his own experiences as a POW, how can he possibly do this? This is worse than a flip-flop, it's selling your soul.- provost, on 02/14/2008, -4/+9oh come on and be resonable..
We all know that mccain never had a soul to begin with.- goldpress, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2No, I recall specifically around 8 or so years ago he had one.
- Spudster, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3Around that time he was actually popular with the Daily Show crowd. Sadly, in order to go anywhere in the Republican party you need to piss this segment off.
- dmjarrington, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Apparently this seems the only pre-requisite. What other reason do they have to be so hateful towards their fellow man?
- provost, on 02/14/2008, -4/+9oh come on and be resonable..
- TheOneTrueGod, on 02/14/2008, -7/+7He should endure it himself. *Then* he should be allowed to make a political decision. Not before.
"Admit it! Waterboarding sucks!" "No!" "Well, I guess we have to keep going then."- Picaroon, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4I'm going to hope and assume that you're being facetious and not actually suggesting that he has no experience with torture. But just in case you aren't:
As a Naval Aviator, he was waterboarded during training. He was also captured and tortured. - ninjasdash, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2If anyone has the right to be for torture it's John McCain
- Picaroon, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4I'm going to hope and assume that you're being facetious and not actually suggesting that he has no experience with torture. But just in case you aren't:
- Henman, on 02/14/2008, -12/+47I created an account JUST so I could reply to all of you. McCain voted against this bill because it tries to make things illegal that were already considered illegal. It gives an out to those in this administration who approved the use of torture as an interrogation technique because after this bill is passed, they can say that it wasn't "illegal" until 2008. Water boarding has been and will still be illegal under the Geneva Conventions.
- Picaroon, on 02/14/2008, -11/+14This is why blogs are so stupid as a source of information. People read thinkprogress, rawstory, etc and think it's true. The only truth is that there are people who gather information and get things right most of the time--they're called *reporters.* There are also people who don't know anything, but like to pretend they do. They're called bloggers.
- roodammy44, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2If most of the reporters gave honest reporting they'd be fired by the corporations who pay them.
That's why we've had to go to blogging for our information - blogging is usually more accurate. - GhostyBoy, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Sorry dude, but reporters have failed us MISERABLY for a long time now.
- roodammy44, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2If most of the reporters gave honest reporting they'd be fired by the corporations who pay them.
- MindTrigger, on 02/14/2008, -5/+24That's a stupid reason to vote no for this. He should have not voted, or "present", and then did a press release about his stance on the issue. In fact, he should have done the press release BEFORE the vote came up, to clarify his position. Right now, none of us have any idea if what you are saying is spin, disinformation or truth. Just because you created an account, doesn't make your word worth any more.
- cremate, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Some of our representatives actually vote... unlike obama.
- bearsinthesea, on 02/14/2008, -2/+32Riiiiight. So all the republicans just happened to vote this way to make sure no one in this administration escapes justice. Meanwhile, all the democrats flopped over and voted against it because they /want/ to give the administration an out.
Why didn't we all see that?- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -6/+1Because you're too busy making generalizations and thinking that every one who voted the same way voted that way for the same reasons.
- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Bleh edit timer...
BTW... just exactly how many democrats and Republicans voted for or against the bill? Do you even know or where you just assuming?
- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Bleh edit timer...
- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -6/+1Because you're too busy making generalizations and thinking that every one who voted the same way voted that way for the same reasons.
- sanitynow, on 02/14/2008, -6/+3If McCain had principles, maybe I'd believe it. He's compromised with the administration on torture before. http://www.rollingstone.com/national...in-compromi ...
- sanitynow, on 02/14/2008, -6/+1If McCain had principles, maybe I'd believe it. He's compromised with the administration on torture before.
Sorry, here's the link: http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index. ...- sanitynow, on 02/14/2008, -2/+0hmm... test.... http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index. ...
- sanitynow, on 02/14/2008, -4/+3Okay, here's the link showing McCain previously compromising:
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index. ... - elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -4/+2First it is not already illegal. In fact the President said that by passing this legislation they would be limiting their ability to extract information from terrorist suspects, the implication being that they are currently using it (they being the intelligence community e.g the CIA).
Second the Geneva convention does not apply to illegal enemy combatants which is how the administration has categorized them, so again they a free to torture them as much as they see fit.- cphoover, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3does it make sense to anyone that if we have a war against a military of an evil empire lets say the nazis for example, they are safe from torture because they fall under geneva convention protection as interpreted by our government but because this is a war on "terror" and not an actual war with a distinct enemy the "terrorists" do not fall under any category thus we can do what ever we want no matter how inhumane or illegal it would be if you did it to anyone protected by such laws.
- zellis, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3And so the lawyers come to justify evil.
1) The President's posturing on this issue has nothing to do with the reality of the law. He's already indicated that he sees nothing wrong with instructing people to break the law and then demanding retroactive immunity for the lawbreakers, as has happened with the Telecom Amnesty Bill.
2) The US does not have the right to dictate where the Geneva Convention does and does not apply, since the Geneva Convention itself specifically lays out the terms by which disagreements over its own interpretation are resolved in Article 11. One party of a conflict dictating the correct interpretation to everyone else is not a valid means of settling such a disagreement.- SomeDrunk, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0You're forgetting that we didn't ratify the '79 addition. It added a nice part clarifying who qualifies as a P.O.W. Which is why we designate these guys as enemy combatants. You get to treat them like spies.
- zellis, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Hm...which part of the Geneva Convention, or any part of international law for that matter, describes what "enemy combatants" are, and how they can be treated?
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2They describe PERSONS, which applies to everybody. This is part of the reason why judges in Florida are trying to redefine terrorist suspects as "non-persons." It's *****.
- SomeDrunk, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0You're forgetting that we didn't ratify the '79 addition. It added a nice part clarifying who qualifies as a P.O.W. Which is why we designate these guys as enemy combatants. You get to treat them like spies.
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3Illegal enemy combatants fall under the Geneva Convention, torture is prohibited for all persons under the Geneva Convention regardless of their designation. The NEWSPEAK used by the Bush administration is an attempt to sidestep the letter and spirit of the law.
- elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1IMO, they are indeed considered civilians so they do not have POW designation and because they are engaging hostilities they are subject to local law (which in a country like Afghanistan or Iraq is basically whatever they want). Perhaps using the term torture was too strongly worded in my post. Let me clarify though, I think they absolutely need to pass legislation explicitly banning its use because the wording of the Geneva convention and international law is so unclear that it gives the administration wiggle room.
- Bakrain, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2How do we know that the people being tortured are actually terrorists? Have you ever heard of DNA evidence absolving people who have spent years in jail, and that is when they actually had a lawyer and a jury.
- elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Exactly. Let me clarify, I'm not saying it's right (in fact far from it). I'm just pointing out the President's position which is why they absolutely need to define it as illegal otherwise the President made it clear they are going to use it. They haven't gone after anyone involved in waterboarding thus far, so I doubt they are seriously going to go after them.
- roodammy44, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Isn't it insane that calling prisoners by a different name means you can get round all the rules?
- zellis, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4Henman, your logic is plausible but your actual evidence is lacking.
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -1/+6Nice try, Henman, but that argument is absolutely full of *****. You can't make previous acts legal by making them ILLEGAL NOW. You just can't do it. THE LAW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. McCain knows this, he is specifically allowing torture by fighting this amendment.
- jclin, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Henman used quotations around illegal for a reason... Read his post carefully because it makes (a weird kind of) sense.
- Spudster, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2Why are people only talking about water boarding? Have you guys seen the other ***** these guys have done? Interrogations also involve playing horribly loud music, posing naked women/porn in front of these devoutly religious terrorists, making them stay up all night and dousing them with cold water. This treatment is not humane and deserves discussion.
- Coldstreak, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0"posing naked women/porn"
Thats fantastic - roodammy44, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Devoutly religious terrorists?
I'll bet most of the people in gitmo haven't even been involved in terrorism.
One of the guys who was a British citizen was at a relatives wedding when they took him.
There's been no proof or public trials. The govt could put anyone they wanted inside.
- Coldstreak, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0"posing naked women/porn"
- illyriah, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2That is BS Henman. First of all, this isn't the first time McCain has been soft on torture. He was really loud when Mukasey was up for appointment, but when it came time to vote, McCaine failed there too. And Mukasey STILL won't give a definition or judgment on toture/waterboarding.
Second, ThinkProgress set this up well before the vote, asking "Will he vote against torture?" This meant that the McCain camp had a reason and time to put out a release before the vote, but they didn't. Instead we get after the fact spin that people like you disseminate blindly.
This, along with McCain's history of NOT being a maverick opposing terrorism, are 2 good reasons not to vote for him. But hey, keep spinning...
- Picaroon, on 02/14/2008, -11/+14This is why blogs are so stupid as a source of information. People read thinkprogress, rawstory, etc and think it's true. The only truth is that there are people who gather information and get things right most of the time--they're called *reporters.* There are also people who don't know anything, but like to pretend they do. They're called bloggers.
- getabrain, on 02/14/2008, -7/+8What a spineless, morally bankrupt McPainInMyRear!
- SomeDrunk, on 02/14/2008, -1/+5From the original article, following the "One interrogation standard" link.
"Senate intelligence ranking member Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., who will lead the charge against the bill, said he is considering raising a point of order against the bill because the provision was inserted during conference. He said he probably would raise this if cloture is invoked.
Bond said the disputed provision would end the CIA's alternative interrogation program, which he said is lawful, invaluable and does not involve torture. He added that the CIA should not be required to follow military regulations for interrogations. Requiring the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual would allow terrorists to know what kind of techniques will be used against them, Bond added.
"The reason they are not disclosed is because everything in the Army Field Manual is republished in the al-Qaida manuals for all of the upper tier al-Qaida members to study, and they will be totally ineffective against them," Bond said."- StarlessKnight, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/new- ...
They declassified the addendum that had been classified previously, "despite warnings from some in the Department of Defense that disclosing certain techniques would undermine the ability of interrogators to extract information." Seems Bond is just echoing earlier concerns.
Rebuttal? "Members of Congress and the State Department had expressed concern about the possibility of including classified techniques, saying that it would cast doubt on US compliance with the Geneva Conventions and raise suspicions that the US was allowing torture."- SomeDrunk, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0From your article..
"The new field manual and accompanying policy directives will apply to all detainees and interrogators in military facilities, as well as to CIA prisoners held at DOD facilities. CIA interrogators working from foreign facilities are not bound by the field manual, but they are barred from treating prisoners inhumanely under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 "
Here's the link
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detaine ...
(http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/
detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php) for truncation
And this from the act..
"No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."
- SomeDrunk, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0From your article..
- StarlessKnight, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/new- ...
- se1zure, on 02/14/2008, -8/+6I could care less about whether he votes for or against waterboarding... as long as he doesn't ***** lie to use about it.
Obama 08! - homah, on 02/14/2008, -1/+3http://youtube.com/watch?v=GbQLuZ28EEM
- insomniac8400, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Without a doubt, this one issue has already cost him the election.
- GhostyBoy, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1I can't believe how badly Romney gets owned by McCain in that clip. Why would McCain take the low road after that?
- Mikhail101, on 02/14/2008, -3/+25Waterboarding is like testing somebody for a witch, you push them off a cliff, if they fly they are a witch and if they fall... well god takes them to heaven
same thing with waterboarding, if they are innocent they will lie so they can breath again and same thing if they are guilty they will still say something. not very reliable- WillisRR17, on 02/14/2008, -0/+9That's true for so many varieties of torture.
- kfed2, on 02/14/2008, -4/+4I guess McCain is flop flipping now too, or maybe he is anti torture and uses a definition of torture that excludes anything not done by "gooks."
- DaDrake, on 02/14/2008, -8/+23Wow, I honestly can not believe all the people jumping on the bandwagon. Seriously, McCain is known for being a stubborn old dog (unlikely to change position even if 99.9% of Americans think differently) AND he been one of the largest critics of torture. This is like placing a "I love kittens" clause in a bill that ban firearms, so people who vote against it are accused of hating kittens (ignoring the real issue).
Seriously, you guys need to at least learn to think for yourself. Otherwise, you look like a bunch of idiots grasping at straws. McCain has numerous positions which you could take a look at....... but instead, you guys digg a fabricated opinion which MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
What next, Obama hates black people and democrats?- Henman, on 02/14/2008, -4/+3Thank you. I can't believe that my comment above isn't being dugg up.
- pyro789x, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2Although your comment is interesting, I didn't digg it up because I don't know if it is indeed true, or just more spin. I didn't bury you, though.
- bearsinthesea, on 02/14/2008, -2/+3McCain, your stubborn old dog, has changed his mind a lot since the last elections. For instance, he has patched things up w/ the religious leaders he used to disparage. So it is not so impossible to see this vote coming, as it does, to keep him in line w/ the repubs.
So, ah, what is the real issue of this vote? Have any links to enlighten us? - dildoolielly, on 02/14/2008, -3/+1McCain doesnt deserve to be this great nation's president, not ever
McCain, IS DAMAGED GOODS sad but true. I've met him...he's a great American but he suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome. Very real...with very real consequences.
God Bless him...but John McCain spent too much time locked up in a tiger cage, abused and tortured (thanks somewhat to that witch Jane Fonda)....and that long term trama never goes away. He can not be elected, ever. He is damaged goods. It's sad but true. - fiveness, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1McCain's reasoning doesn't add up. He says he can't hold the CIA to the same standards as the military. That the Army field manual is too restricting for their purposes. BS. The CIA might just need more than the already "approved" torture methhods? (no, I won't say coersive interrogation techniques) McCain will be wrestling with some serious cognitive dissonance in the fall.
- Henman, on 02/14/2008, -4/+3Thank you. I can't believe that my comment above isn't being dugg up.
- tgc1, on 02/14/2008, -4/+5What a loser.
- Nikkon2131, on 02/14/2008, -7/+15Extremely happy that McCain is coming to my campus tomorrow and I have the opportunity to protest.
- damoore, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4Why is this dugg down?
- dmjarrington, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4Give him hell.
- bentman78, on 02/14/2008, -11/+12Bureid as inaccurate
McCain voted against this bill because it tries to make things illegal that were already illegal. By voting for this it would make things like waterboarding illegal now, which means the Bush administration would have gotten away with it...until now.
McCain is the only GOP cadidate that stands a chance so of course the opposition has to resort to lies to try and level the playing field. Shameful really.- MindTrigger, on 02/14/2008, -4/+6Again, this is s ludicrous reason to vote NO on this issue. He should have done a press release PRIOR to the vote to state his position, and then voted PRESENT. We have no way of knowing if what you are saying is spin, disinformation (by his supporters) or the actual truth.
Either way, if the man isn't smart enough to state his position on the issue before making such a ridiculous vote, it doesn't matter anyway. He just fed his opposition more ammo against his candidacy. Works for me, because I don't want the war monger in office anyway.- DaDrake, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2Don't be stupid, McCain is one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration use of waterbording. No senator, especially one campaigning, can make a press release on everything. Furthermore, stating his position is like stating the obvious.
What you are reading IS SPIN ..... it makes no sense. Again, this is just stupid and irrational ..... and the reason why major news outlets won't report this.- MindTrigger, on 02/14/2008, -2/+3It's his ***** VOTE that makes NO SENSE. Voting PRESENT would have been much smarter if he wasn't looking to swiftboat himself. I know what he has said in the past, and that is fine, but that doesn't make this vote any better looking.
- drachasor, on 02/14/2008, -2/+2Maybe he can't make a press release about everything, but surely he could have found time for an issue so important to him. Best case, he just wants pro-torture people to think he is pro-torture -- which is why he released no statement. Worst case, he has changed his position to appease the right. It's probably more the former (a deception), than the later, but this is still a breach of his ethics, for he is now lying to the American people.
I find it particularly reprehensible that he makes no mention of waterboarding or torture on the issues section of his website, despite having a "human dignity" as a multi-point issue. It does indeed seem like he is either changing his position on torture or obfuscating. In contrast, Obama specifically states he won't stand for torture under his issues.- MindTrigger, on 02/14/2008, -2/+1I agree 100%
Don't you think this would have been one of those defining moments when he should have taken the time to make a press release? Listen to yourself, DaDrake. This is not a trivial matter, and the entire world is watching everything these candidates do. Just look at Clinton. She won't vote on a damn thing right now because she's afraid she might have to answer for taking a solid stance on something. Another good reason to vote for Obama, IMO.
- MindTrigger, on 02/14/2008, -2/+1I agree 100%
- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -4/+0It doesn't make sense to you because you don't understand how bills are presented.
It goes without saying that the bill had a half dozen different things in it that were not part of the water boarding or torture issues. This is par for the American Legislative Branch. Perhaps there were other things in the bill that he wasn't satisfied with a "present" vote on. Other issues that were far more important than declaring something that is already illegal as illegal.- MindTrigger, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2Yeah, because bills are such a deep concept to grasp.
- DaDrake, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2Don't be stupid, McCain is one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration use of waterbording. No senator, especially one campaigning, can make a press release on everything. Furthermore, stating his position is like stating the obvious.
- elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -1/+5Could you provide an exact reference for how this is "already illegal"? US laws wouldn't have jurisdiction of foreign soil; the interrogators are intelligence officers so they are not subject of US military code of justice; the people being waterboarded have been deemed illegal enemy combatants by the President so they are not protected by the Geneva convention. Is there something I'm missing?
- drachasor, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4If they were already illegal than passing this bill wouldn't have made past acts any less illegal. This is a false premise, especially since as Chief Executive (if he was elected), he could certainly go after anyone who had torture before this bill was passed. There's no good reason not to vote for it, since it would certainly send a message to stop current waterboarding -- which, given the vote totals, is perhaps a more achievable goal than prosecuting past waterboarders (and again, those post waterboardings are still illegal even with this bill passed).
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -2/+3You can't invalidate preexisting law by passing a new law defining prohibitive acts. Your excuse is feeble and shows a lack of understanding of legislation. McCain, on the other hand, has 26 years of experience in the legislature and knows exactly what the ***** he's doing wrong.
- dmoffitt, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2if by that you mean "losing my vote" then, yes. he knows what he's doing. :D
- Spudster, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1This is a very convenient out for McCain who is trying to repair bridges with the rest of the party.
- MindTrigger, on 02/14/2008, -4/+6Again, this is s ludicrous reason to vote NO on this issue. He should have done a press release PRIOR to the vote to state his position, and then voted PRESENT. We have no way of knowing if what you are saying is spin, disinformation (by his supporters) or the actual truth.
- donjuan571, on 02/14/2008, -4/+5Is this guy trying not to win? Flipfloping like this is political suicide, the pundits are going to tear him a new *****, ***** what conservatives think John you already have the nomination in the bag, and now you renig on your principles? I mean for ***** if you were in a torture camp for 8 years, and the majority of your time in the senate you are against it, now you are running back? You couldn't have possibly forgot the time you spent there...so many people are going to hate you even more for this.
- Atticusius, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0You just gave great reasons for why he should have voted for the bill or not shown up to vote at all. But he voted against it, and he must have had a reason. What if the bill really is bad and he's doing what he thinks he needs to do to protect his country from bad legislation--even at great personal risk?
- An0malous, on 02/14/2008, -5/+1If he is for waterboarding, then I am for his thermometer-up-his-urethra-then-break-it-so-the-mercury-leaks-out torture that he went through in Vietnam. And only his torture.
- abarkett, on 02/14/2008, -10/+2Are you people serious? The vote was about WHETHER waterboarding is torture. You really think you know the answer to that and John McCain doesn't? You are the most arrogant bunch of idiots I have heard in a while. I trust the man who WAS tortured for years and has consistently fought against torture to decide such matters. If I started saying that name-calling was torture, then would you trash McCain for not supporting me? You are seriously stupid if you think that way.
Read the literature. It is most definitely NOT clear, obvious, or even correct that waterboarding meets the criteria for torture. Why do you think it's torture? Because the person thinks they're going to die? Is being on death row legally torture?
Arrogance is thinking you know the answers about questions which you are TOTALLY unqualified to answer. That's what you people are -- arrogant.- homah, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2McCain himself said waterboarding was torture in one of the debates.
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1He said it in a ***** congressional committee, too!
- StarlessKnight, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1If it's not torture, then it is, at least, still criminal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
A History of Waterboarding: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ... - elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2The assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin went to a military base and had them waterboard him so that he'd have a basis for which to advise the President on whether it was torture or not. He described it as a terrifying experience even though he knew it wasn't real. He then sent a memo to George Bush saying that only in very limited circumstances could it *not* be considered torture. He was fired not long after. He had as much basis as McCain (even moreso with his legal background) to make that decision.
- Akufen, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1I don't know what literature you're reading, but this states quite clearly:
"Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "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, ..."
I don't think we have to argue that making someone believe he's about to die or drown is indeed inflicting mental pain. In the case of waterboarding it has even led to lasting mental effects or even death.
- homah, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2McCain himself said waterboarding was torture in one of the debates.
- BannedTwice, on 02/14/2008, -13/+3If anyone knows torture its Mccain, as he spent YEARS of his life as a POW. ***** you socialist pansy *****, we have to fight with 100% of our being, waterboarding ISN'T ENOUGH. We should be beheading ***** left and right like they do us. It's absolutely ridiculous having to fight with one hand behind our back. Last point WATERBOARDING ISN"T TORTURE!
- homah, on 02/14/2008, -0/+5Except McCain said waterboarding *is* torture and shouldn't be done.
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+7...McCain said it was torture. Now he's running for president and SUDDENLY he has a change of heart. Face it, McCain's a ***** stooge.
- MindTrigger, on 02/14/2008, -0/+5Read my post below, douche. It's McCain telling Romney that waterboarding IS torture in one of the debates.
- dildoolielly, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4Look at what has become of the 28% holdouts. The hardcore bushbot kool-aid drinkers get stuck defending pedophilia, corruption, lies, quagmire, bribery, incompetence, and now torture.
- elipabst, on 02/14/2008, -0/+6Seriously, please do us all a favor and don't breed (or vote for that matter).
- StarlessKnight, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4Only point: MODERN, WESTERN HISTORY DISAGREES WITH YOU.
The following is quoted from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
1. In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
2. On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
3. Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.
Warm Happy Fuzzy Note: Stephen Rickard, Washington director of the Open Society Institute, says that throughout the centuries, the justifications for using waterboarding have been remarkably consistent.
"Almost every time this comes along, people say, 'This is a new enemy, a new kind of war, and it requires new techniques,'" he says. "And there are always assurances that it is carefully regulated." - dmjarrington, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1McCain IS the socialist you idiot.
- GoneGreen, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Man o man, this guy must be married with kids... and lots of them. Only children can drive this extreme rage!
- MindTrigger, on 02/14/2008, -1/+29John: Well governor I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is
Mitt: I know what waterboarding is senator
John: Then I'm astonished that you would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in in our... who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the geneva conventions, it's in violation of existing law, and governor, let me tell ya, if we're gonna get the high ground in this world and we're gonna be america that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years, we're not gonna torture people. We're not gonna do what Pol Pot did, we're not gonna do what's being done to burmese monks as we speak, and I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like colon powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that kind of thing could be inflicted by americans on people that are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.- austinfrank, on 02/14/2008, -0/+9Just the facts, ma'am. It is what it is.
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -5/+12When he was hugging Bush he should have just gone the rest of the way and jerked him off. Jon Stewart, please destroy this man.
- dinorama1234, on 02/14/2008, -1/+8Stewart already destroyed him. He came back. They always come back.
www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/25/senator-mccain-on-the-daily-show/- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -3/+1I dug you down for posting a url for crooksandliars. Their name fits them better than any politician.
- dinorama1234, on 02/14/2008, -1/+8Stewart already destroyed him. He came back. They always come back.
- XStatic, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4He voted against a Democratic bill authorizing intelligence activities for the current year, which the Senate approved on a 51-45 vote., don't assume he was voting for one thing the bill was against.
For example, the bill also blocked 70% of our own intelligence budget until the intel committees get briefed on the Israeli raid on Syria.
Since the army field manual prohibits waterboarding, perhaps he thought the bill with other provisions he didn't approve of, wasn't necessary.
Remember congress loves to name bills and put stuff in them that you really have to support but stuff them with things they want that are controversial so they can slide in too.
We still need a line item veto!- StarlessKnight, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1No, we do not need a line item veto, otherwise Bush wouldn't have had to use non-binding signing statements, he'd have perfectly molded American to his every whim with binding vetoes. The Executive executes the law; Congress writes it. What we need is Congress to stop playing politics with the American people using misleading titles, overly complicated legalese, and attaching completely unrelated riders to every bill (particularly emergency funding) they can get their hands on.
- drachasor, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2If you can produce any evidence to back up your claim here, I'd like to see it. All I can gather is that this anti-torture provision was added to something the Houe and Senate had already agreed on. Also, the only objections I find to the bill are objections to the elimination on torture. So please, show me an example or two of where McCain or others had a problem with the non-torture-related provisions.
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3This amendment would have prevented the CIA from using waterboarding, buddy. McCain voted against it.
- RobotLeAwesome, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0Hey buddy, bills typically cover way more than one thing - For all we know the other part of the bill was agreeing to be raped by Nazi zombies, and John McCain just saved our asses.
- macinit1138, on 02/14/2008, -7/+2Damn, if the terrorists only hit there primary targets on 9/11 and did the job right, we wouldn't be in this mess! It's like when Hitler was almost killed by a terrorist bomb... if only....
- catdawg555, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0If only you were aborted we would not have to read such a stupid comment
- macinit1138, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0I wish the current administration was aborted, well it could have been, read above...
- catdawg555, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0If only you were aborted we would not have to read such a stupid comment
- m8ymerc1, on 02/14/2008, -4/+20I'm a (R) and a vet and clearly wanted RP to get the nomination. It doesn't look like that is going to happen (unfortunately).
McCain who is a vet, who was tortured, who unequivocally spoke out against torture has in my eyes completely sold out the servicemen of this country. He def. will not be getting my vote.
I will be voting for Obama, if RP doesn't run as an Independent.- nakani, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Obama is down with REAL ID, Patriot Act, and won't take nuclear first strikes against Iran off the table, FYI. You might want to look at a 3rd party candidate or just write RP in to show your support.
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Actually, HE HAS TAKEN THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS OFF THE TABLE, YOU TWIT. Edwards and Clinton attacked him for it repeatedly. In fact, he's for the removal of nuclear weapons ALL AROUND THE GLOBE. It's a party platform. He gave a ***** speech on it in November.
Furthermore, in his comments on Real ID, he protested the lack of security on Real ID, expressed his concerns, and stated he found it a reasonable security measure only if security of information and privacy could be improved. I haven't looked up his stance on the Patriot Act, though.- RobotLeAwesome, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0So in other words: he supports the Real ID as long as it can't be used to steal someones identity - which isn't personally the part I'm worrying about.
- Bilabrin, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah but seriously he's the lesser of 3 evils.
- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Actually, HE HAS TAKEN THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS OFF THE TABLE, YOU TWIT. Edwards and Clinton attacked him for it repeatedly. In fact, he's for the removal of nuclear weapons ALL AROUND THE GLOBE. It's a party platform. He gave a ***** speech on it in November.
- Bakrain, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2I'll write in RP and return to my previous state of apathy.
- GhostyBoy, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1You may have missed the point of the whole movement.
It's not about casting a vote and then waiting for someone else to solve the problem....it's about what we can do to make things better ourselves. Stay the course.
- GhostyBoy, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1You may have missed the point of the whole movement.
- phantom20x, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Waterboarding from congresses eyes is NOT torture. wiki it
- nakani, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Obama is down with REAL ID, Patriot Act, and won't take nuclear first strikes against Iran off the table, FYI. You might want to look at a 3rd party candidate or just write RP in to show your support.
- americajones, on 02/14/2008, -4/+7Maybe his electronic voting machine was hacked.
- dmjarrington, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1they did it for the lulz
- Sunsetter, on 02/14/2008, -5/+8I guess there's only a little bit of hypocrisy in a former P.O.W. voting for torture of others.
Just a little bit. . . - unclerichard, on 02/14/2008, -4/+9Now republicans have more in common with terrorists. Along with religious fundamentalism.
- GoneGreen, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Republicans are the "American Jihadists". I say we take all of the bibles in hotel rooms and go to Mississippi and burn them in protest!
- DaDrake, on 02/14/2008, -5/+4Reading all these responses makes me loose faith in the new generation. Seriously, has everyone forgotten how to think for them selfs? Or, as a nation, are we so polarize that people eagerly jump on the bandwagon to defame the other "side" no mater how absurd, pathetic, or fabricated the statement is.
- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0"Or, as a nation, are we so polarize that people eagerly jump on the bandwagon to defame the other "side" no mater how absurd, pathetic, or fabricated the statement is."
That one. It's utterly pathetic but that is exactly how the vast majority of people actually go about their lives. "If it is in line with what I want to believe and/or helps me further my own goals it must be true." - dmjarrington, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1McCain is a flip flopper. If you are voting for him then all I can say is you should practice what you preach, good sir.
- bwdigg, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1"no mater how absurd, pathetic, or fabricated the statement is"
How absurd and fabricated is it? He voted against a bill to define waterboarding as torture (since the WH is saying it isn't). That's about as simple as it gets. If he's morally opposed to torture, then he's morally compromised by voting against this bill. He could have just not voted if he wanted, he didn't. I liked the guy up to then. He was the only Repub I would have considered voting for, but not now.
- wolferz, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0"Or, as a nation, are we so polarize that people eagerly jump on the bandwagon to defame the other "side" no mater how absurd, pathetic, or fabricated the statement is."
- momonami, on 02/14/2008, -2/+6screw this warmonger not getting my vote.
- SomeDrunk, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0I'm sure he was counting on it.
- redd2600, on 02/14/2008, -13/+5McCain knows more about torture than any of you damn hippies that are insulting him.
- unclerichard, on 02/14/2008, -1/+9That's why I trusted him when he said it was torture. Now he says it's not. Did he learn something new about it just being a presidential candidate?
- Bakrain, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4Dugg for using the word hippies in a post generation x computer mediated medium.
- dmjarrington, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1YOU'RE A HIPPIE
- CayoHuesoDude, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2110/2264393634_99b ...
- IpsoPhatso87, on 02/14/2008, -3/+5Just another douche bag running for political office. This country is so screwed come November. :(
- socketman, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0That I'll agree with. I am tired of the two party system - no matter who you get, they aren't good. It is how much can we limit the damage to the country and constitution
- 919kwjc, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2McCain gave money to this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot-JbW64r-w - thecoolestguy, on 02/14/2008, -2/+16So now Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican presidential candidate against torture.
- FluffyWolf, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Nope, Huckabee is also against torture.
(At least according to this table over the candidates opinions: http://www.2decide.com/table.htm )- ZenMojo, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2He'll mince words, just ask him the right/wrong question.
- dmjarrington, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3Huckabee is a panderer.
- socketman, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0I just lost respect for Ron Paul... and Huckabee
- FluffyWolf, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Nope, Huckabee is also against torture.
- dildoolielly, on 02/14/2008, -5/+6A "practicing Democracy" that believes in Torture? WTF? Shame on you America. Shame on your justice system, shame on the idiots in your government and shame on each citizen that does nothing to stop this sh*t!
If you can justify torturing any person, then you can justify torturing any person.
McCain doesnt belong anywhere near the seat of government, this psychotic belongs in the looney bin!- RobotLeAwesome, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0I want to torture you.
- dildoolielly, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1seek help
- RobotLeAwesome, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0I want to torture you.
- protodon, on 02/14/2008, -4/+1I think he also eats babies. Tell everyone you know! Especially the babies!
- dmjarrington, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1What is wrong with eating babies? 0_o
- Bilabrin, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1You forget to mention how gawdawful ugly the man is. Can you imagine having to look at that scraggly turtle head for 4 years?
- Bergodin, on 02/14/2008, -8/+6He definitely gets my vote if he's FOR water-boarding. War is about killing people. If I have the right to kill you in the name of war, then I have the right to instead take you prisoner, put a piece of plastic in your mouth and pour water into it to induce the sensation of drowning for 30 seconds. I then have the right to judge if the information you are telling me that I wouldn't have been told if I had instead killed you, is accurate and reliable and could save the lives of my fellow country men who enjoy the privilege of going to a public place without being blown to bits by the same person I choose to water-board instead of shooting.
- unclerichard, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2Is this from a new Bin Laden tape?
- gwennthered, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1War is about killing people? Put down your console controller and go take a history class.
- deklax, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1War is about achieving political objectives through the use of force. If you are not accomplishing your goals, your just supporting sadists and furthering the stated goals of al qaeda by terrorizing the world and driving recruits to their cause.
By your logic "if i have the right to kill you I have the right to ____" you could place virtually anything in that blank, including rape, torture, slavery, anything - "at least they are still alive" right? It is exactly this attitude that has gotten us to the point we are at. And guess what, we're still at war 7 years after we were attacked and haven't won by any measure. There are more living terrorists today than Our Dear President claimed existed in the entire world 5 years ago. Good Job! - GhostyBoy, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1I ***** hate war and torture. The insecure idiots who cheer-lead for it are just as bad.
- socketman, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Right on - makes me like him better.
Who in their right mind would but a TERRORIST's comfort (not even health), over AMERICAN lives?
Emotional liberals who don't like to deal in reality - that's who - bwdigg, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Please explain how you are then different from the terrorists? WIthout a moral high ground, the difference is only a matter of degree.
- RRJackson, on 02/14/2008, -3/+4He's voting the way his party has decided to vote. He's a party loyalist, even though he openly challenges some of the party decisions. It's like watching infants discuss politics.
- dmjarrington, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1His party is full of wingnuts. Isn't it time to overthrow these assholes yet?
- socketman, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0I know, if only the emotional based (vs fact based) liberals would drop out and let the big boys discuss the politics
- bwdigg, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1socketman2, what is the "fact" about the way he voted? For or against? Oh, right, the complaint doesn't meet the standard of factual accuracy maintained by the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth". The entire Republcan party is emotional based. We attacked Iraq ONLY because we were emotional and wanted to hit someone because someone (else) hit us. Your argument is patently ridiculous. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the Bush Administration and the Republican congressmen who have enabled it are FACT based? Where do you get your facts? From Rush Limbaugh?!?
- Yoda900, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1This article is ridiculous. A single provision against waterboarding does not make a bill good enough to pass. Clearly there was something else in the bill preventing Sen. McCain from voting for it. His voting this bill down shows that he makes reasonable and thought-out decisions, not that he backs out of his convictions. Please, people, don't be fooled by oversimplifications of the issues in this election.
- catdawg555, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0well it's about damn time he got on board waterboard that is. uhhh sorry i appoligise for that one.
- RobotLeAwesome, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0...the man was tortured so badly as a POW he can barely lift his arms over his head - criticize his voting record sure, but wishing more torture to the man is just wrong.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
