No, you clearly stated that McCain "has long argued that the Army Field Manual ... should apply to all agencies."

That statement is blatantly incorrect. McCain has said that the AFM is a good standard to compare other agencies to, but he has never said that all agencies should fall under the AFM.

There is a huge difference in those two statements. Get your facts straight.



More twisting BS from Beeble!

He doesn't want to exclude the CIA. He actually says the CIA already has similar laws to the AFM. He thinks the CIA should abide by similar laws.

Listen, please, and understand before you go talking out of your rear end.

John McCain believes that the AFM, and the standards regarding torture set within the AFM, works. He believes that using those standards, the Army can effectively operate and protect our country. Got that? OK then, moving on.

John McCain believes that the standards in the AFM should be the same standards that every other agency is subject to. Got that? OK then, moving on.

Here is the part you can't seem to grasp.

Get ready, I know it's hard, but I'm going to try and explain it to you.

While McCain believes the standards in the AFM work, and believes that every agency should subject themselves to the same standards .... he does NOT believe that every agency should be directly placed under the rule of the AFM. The AFM is a military document, and McCain doesn't believe that military documents should apply to civilian agencies. There are a multitude of reasons for this.

Think about it.

Makes sense doesn't it!

But hey, we all know you're just going to continue mindlessly bashing, and I wouldn't have it any other way. So carry on!



If you've noticed, I've never commented on the incident.

All I have ever said regarding torture is that:

A) Given the scenario I have mentioned before where lives are directly at stake, I am in favor of whatever it takes, including torture.
B) Torture has been going on in every major war of this country, and people who think this is some new problem are kidding themselves.

I really don't know much at all regrading the water boarding issue with the Bush administration, haven't paid attention to it, and don't know enough to really talk about it. Thus I haven't.

But hey, it's good to see that you know what I'm going to stand for, always good to know when you're being blatantly stereotyped by a mindless hypocrite!

But Eagle, doesn't this nitpicking bother you? Isn't it obvious that McCain is only saying this to gain support from the right wing nuts who think it's OK to torture people?

"Torture is wrong and evil and goes against what we stand for as Americans and contradicts our treaties. Oh, but if the CIA does it, then it doesn't count."

How in the world is that not bullshit?

Now if you're going to continue to try to say that all McCain was doing was saying that civilian groups shouldn't be subjected to military documents, then where is McCain's bill making the CIA standards the same as the military standards? By voting for this bill, he is opening the door to allowing CIA torture, but instead of being the man he claims he is, he is cowering like a mouse.

Because a "straight talkin' maverick" Republican stated it. Actually the key word is Republican. Republicans never contradict themselves, or hold public positions that are untenable when compared to their actual actions or votes.

The question I have is why? Torture has been proven to not work and it elicits false information, that degrades our resources.

As an example perhaps we have a lead that Mohammed Hussein is a terrorist, and we are worried about a bombing of an embassy. We torture Hussein and he tells what he thinks we want to hear. We allocate resources on this phantom plan, meanwhile the bombing takes place, because we were investigating the wrong people. Perhaps we thwart the attack if we don't act on the false information produced by Hussein's "confession". That is is just one of the many problems with torture.

YES! I hate this nitpicking, but it's the only way to deal with Beeble. All he does is nitpick everything I say down to the letter. If he wants to play that way, fine, I'll show him how stupid he looks most of the time.

The fact is, everyone mis types, or mis represents what they really mean from time to time.

As for McCain, ALL OF YOU are guilty of simply looking at his NO vote, and nothing else.



Look. McCain agrees with all of you! He thinks the CIA should be prohibited from using any undue torture techniques. He even explains that there is an act currently in place which PROHIBITS the use of those types of treatment.

McCain has been on the forefront of torture legislation since day 1. To say he is cowering is unfair. I trust his judgment, I think he means what he says. I think his reasoning makes logical sense, and I understand it.

You could be right, I really don't know. My opinion is my own. I just feel that if it were my life at stake, I want them doing everything they can, and I trust the governments trained people to decide what the best course of action is to save my life.

The candidate I think I'll end up supporting (McCain) tends to agree with you. I know you all say that torture is proven not to work, but I don't believe that is true of all cases. Maybe that's where we differ.

If torture has been proved to not work, why do countries still do it? Why have people been doing it since the beginning of time? My suggestion is that in a lot of cases, it works, otherwise why do it?

How was this study done that proves torture doesn't work? Was there a group of people tortured and told to "lie not matter what" and a group told to "do whatever" and then measure the results? How would one go about conducting such a study? Any study in this area would seem to dwarf anything Stanley Milgram ever conducted.

mdana... In your "scenario"... who could we be going after to investigate? How would we get information out of THOSE people? Ask them politely? If torturing someone who has a very high probability of knowing something about an attack, we MUST do something! We can't just sit around and wait to be attacked! Whether it works or not isn't the question. EVERYTHING should be done to try and prevent an impending attack.

I agree, but you are far too general. What I mean is, the person in charge, who is giving the order to torture, must have an abundance of evidence that there is a deadly imminent threat in which the person being held may have information that could save lives.

Torture should not be applied to people who may have information, for instance, which would aid in finding Osama Bin Laden, despite how serious that issue may be. Torture is a terrible thing, I just think that in the direst of instances, we're being foolish if we limit ourselves.

Well yes, that's what I was going for. You just worded it far better than I did... could.

Well, if he agrees with us, then why did he vote against the bill that would do exactly what he wanted? I can't follow your logic here; I don't think it makes a bit of sense.

This bill would have extended to the CIA the prohibitions set in place by 2006 legislation (that McCain sponsored). He voted against it. Is his argument that the CIA was already covered under the old act (despite what the Senators who wrote the act said)? Then why not support it? What's the harm? So what if they are told in two separate acts not to torture?

Eagle, I seriously don't see any logic here. It's all politics of a kind McCain used to be above, until he started kissing the asses of the radical right preachers he previously (and correctly) called "agents of intolerance" and hugging George W. Bush, a man who had insulted him and played underhanded tricks against him in order to win the presidency in 2000.

I used to admire McCain. I didn't agree with him on a lot of issues, but he is truly a war hero and used to be a man who I knew I could trust -- who followed his insticts and was a true leader. Now he's an embarassment who will say and do anything to get elected.

Have to be registered.

It's free to register! No excuses!

Here's an excerpt:

It is true that Mr. McCain sometimes weaves and bobs. With the arrival of the primaries, he has moved to the right on social issues and pretended to be more conservative than he is. On Wednesday, for example, he retreated on his brave stand on torture by voting against a bill that would block the C.I.A. from using physical force in interrogations.

His most famous pander came in 2000, when, after earlier denouncing the Confederate flag as a “symbol of racism,” he embraced it as “a symbol of heritage.” To his credit, Mr. McCain later acknowledged, “I feared that if I answered honestly I could not win the South Carolina primary, so I chose to compromise my principles.”

In short, Mr. McCain truly has principles that he bends or breaks out of desperation and with distaste. That’s preferable to politicians who are congenital invertebrates.

I disagree with Mr. McCain on Iraq, taxes, abortion and almost every other major issue. He has a nasty temper, which isn’t ideal for the hand holding a nuclear trigger. For a man running partly on biography, he treated his first wife, Carol, poorly. And one of the meanest put-downs in modern political history was a savage joke that Mr. McCain publicly related about Chelsea Clinton when she was 18 years old; it was inexcusable.

From Kristoff's article.

Those are mighty powerful examples, Nick.

Mike,

I don't know what to tell you man, in all honesty, it's not hard to follow McCain's logic in his NO vote. And to say that it compromises his principles, when he has such a clear position on the issue, is totally bogus.

McCain didn't like provisions added to the bill, which weren't part of the original draft. He agrees with the general principle, but disagrees with the way it's being accomplished.

I'll try one more time to explain it:

McCain dislikes the bill because:

1) In 2005, Congress applied the AFM to all of the DoD, but excluded the CIA.
2) McCain believes the bill is NOT directly transferable to the CIA because military interrogation is vastly different than intelligence interrogation.
3) The bill passed in 2005 recognized this fact, and thus deliberately left the CIA out.
4) The bill passed in 2005, The Detainee Treatment Act, restricts CIA interrogations to specific techniques which all adhere to Geneva conventions, etc.
5) The bill in 2005 allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. McCain does not want this to be lost, which it would if placed only under the AFM.

To be honest, I think it's pretty damn straight forward. They are trying to mess with the bill he fought to get passed in 2005, so he naturally fought it.

Calling him an embarrassment over this, is total ignorance.

OK, so he's been inconsistent longer than I thought!

I dunno, to me if something is wrong, it's wrong. Saying "torture is wrong unless the CIA does it" doesn't cut it for me.

Wow, Mike, you are very frustrating right now!

There is nothing inconsistent about this! IF you go read the AFM, it restricts interrogation VERY specifically. It literally outlines a specific number of techniques that can be used, everything else is illegal.

As McCain said, military interrogation is not always the same as intelligence interrogation. Sometimes they use different techniques, and these would no longer be allowed under the AFM. That's what McCain doesn't want.

Now UNDERSTAND PLEASE, because I thought I made this very clear. Just because the techniques are different, does not mean they are torture. The techniques McCain wants the CIA to be able to use, are in no way any more torture than the techniques in the AFM. They are just different, and thus illegal if the CIA were under the law of the AFM.

They are not torture, they apply to all Geneva Conventions, they are just as human as the techniques in the AFM, they are just different. I can't possible be anymore clear.

Why are people alcoholics?




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan11.html



http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feat ... ndex2.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Why, as a Democrat, would you vote for McCain over Hillary? Forget about personalities; the most important thing the next president will do is nominate Supreme Court justices. That's why I don't understand why Republicans are ganging up on McCain and Democrats on Hillary.

Then I am confused about what this new law requires, and why columnists are saying something different than what I am reading from you.

Allow me to do some research before responding.

This I agree with.

To me, the nomination of Supreme Court justices is probably in the top three most important concerns. I don't really get why some Dems are all "Whoa, I'll go McCain if it's Hillary!" when you know that McCain will nominate conservative psychos (because some of the justices will inevitably retire in the next four years) that will, you know, run the country into the ground.

Care to explain what you mean? Other then abortion, what Supreme Court issues are you most concerned about? Commerce Clause jurisprudence? FRCP 56 interpretations? Maybe some new guidelines on personal jurisdiction in light of the internet? Possibly a rule FRCP 26 discovery ruling?

What issues are you afraid that so-called conservative justices ("psychos") will rule on that will "run the country into the ground"?

Well, let's look at what they have done in the past few years.

They decided that despite the 1st amendment, a school can kick out a student for things he said outside of school which had no affect on school functions at all.

They held that you can't sue your employer for discrimination unless you discover the dicrimination within a few months after being hired.

They limited the rights of people on death row to demand DNA testing and other appellate rights.

They overruled Brown v. Board of Education, one of the major and most important civil rights cases in the last 50 years.

Despite specific unequivocal wording the Constitution, the court held that big businesses like Disney can hold a copyright longer than the Constitution allows.

They held that the EPA does not have to obey the rules set down by the legislature if they don't feel like it.

Similarly, they have upheld the power of the President to ignore laws that he disagrees with.

And, of course, they decided that the 10th amendment does not apply to the states when they might choose a different President than the one the Supreme Court wants.

Now, admittedly, there are a small minority of cases that one could categorize as liberal, such as requiring the government to give prisoners in Guantanamo Bay the right to habeas corpus, but these decisions are few and far between.

...These are just off the top of my head; I didn't do any research, and I am sure there are many I have forgotten.

I mean, you may agree with all of these radical decisions, but you seriously cannot claim with a straight face that this court is not being run by extreme conservatives.

They held that the government can give money to churches for "faith based initiatives" in direct contradiction to the 1st amendment.

How could anyone support something like this?! McCain disgusts me.