Watching This Interview w/McCain Will Lower Your IQ

There is so much wrong with this debate that I don’t know where to start.

McCain was a military man from a military family, he has spent decades dealing with national security and yet he pretends that he doesn’t know the difference between fighting an enemy nation and fighting terrorists. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union all violated the laws of wars, especially the treatment of prisoners, but they did take prisoners and followed some of the laws of war. Al Qaeda takes no prisoners and follows no laws.

Its people are not entitled to any treatment based on mutuality whatsoever.

McCain brings up the claim that waterboarding originated in the Spanish Inquisition. That’s a myth that appears to have been spread by Sidney Blumenthal. The technique long predated it. And it was fairly mild by inquisition standards. Torture during that period was far more horrifying than anyone today wants to deal with.

Ditto for McCain’s claim that we executed Japanese war criminals for waterboarding Americans. Japan’s war criminals used prisoners to test chemical weapons and ate Allied prisoners of war. Waterboarding was about the mildest thing they would have done.

Bill O’Reilly starts promoting his book and McCain starts relitigating Malmedy and Dresden. Whatever point might have existed has already long been lost. Fog of war doesn’t apply. The whole thing isn’t even relevant.

A military conflict is not even relevant for that matter. We are not engaged in a military conflict in another state. We’re fighting non-state terrorists. The closest analogies were Communist agents in the US and Indian raiders. The enemy has one core strategy for the military side of the conflict and that is to kill American civilians. Our purpose is to stop them. That requires enhanced interrogation.

None of this is new. We’ve been having this debate for a while now. McCain is familiar with the issues. So why instead of addressing them does he begin babbling about Dresden?

  • halevi

    McCain is such a detestable character, I don’t know what to say. He was a horrible presidential candidate and you have to believe in G-d to understand how he got the Republican nomination for president. I wish he would just go away already.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    I’ll assume he has been traumatized but I’d ask him to excuse himself from this debate. His inability to discuss this topic coherently is too obvious.

  • SoCalMike

    I loath Jihad John Manchurian McCain.
    He is a traitor and a sell out.
    Long ago the checks on his War Hero Account started coming back marked “Account Overdrawn.”

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    All of those years of TORTURE stole this man’s soul and his manhood. His brains were scrambled and the damage has finally caught up with him. It is a shame that the conservative media still run to this man as if he has anything to contribute. He is a blank!!

  • http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ Edward Cline

    For their own good, the Republicans should put McCain out to pasture. Senility is settling into his mind and his synapses just aren’t crackling quickly as they ought to. HIs mental circuit breakers are collapsing or misfiring. As Tim Stamper remarked about a blubbering politician in “House of Cards”: “If I had a dog like that I’d shoot him.”

  • USARetired

    McCain’s brain became destabilized the moment he consorted with the enemy in Vietnam!!

  • Meint Veldman

    I would hope watching this interview won’t lower IQ’s since the reactions below show the already limited capacity to think beyond gut feelings available with some people. .

    John McCain at his best is the bravest man in American Politics. Standing up for what he believes in, his principles.

    Nitpicking
    his statements for possible mistakes does not make the overall jist
    wrong: Not only is torture unreliable, but more importantly its against
    Western, human, christian, American and constitutional values. Tell me
    this, if he is wrong.. does that mean your beloved Ronald Regan also
    was wrong when he signed treaties against such torture?

    Looking
    at reactions about him consorting with the enemy you can see the
    Bush/Rove smear campaighn against him at his first bid for the
    Republican nomination stuck. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the old
    accusations about him having an interracial out of wedlock daughter
    coming up again.
    Talk about detestable.. Bush dodged Vietnam but had the guile to attack McCain on his warexperience?

    McCain
    would have made a much better president then GWB and had it not been
    for the insanity in choosing Palin also much preferable over the
    ineffectual and weak Obama or the corporate thief Romney.

    • glpage

      Our Constitution says nothing about handling terrorists in foreign theaters. The international sanctions against torture do noto apply to terrorists. Finally, all the members of the Senate intelligence committee were briefed on the procedures that were going to be used; they had the opportunity to express their views that any or all of these procedures were torture, none did. Finally, Obama had Holder review the procedures used to determine if any were in fact torture, Holder and the DOJ did not find any of the EITs to be torture. Torture is not keeping someone awake for a few days, the form of water boarding used against the terrorists is the same used to train our special ops personnel, so, I would tend to think it really isn’t torture.

      John McCain experienced real torture in North Vietnam; nothing used against the terrorists even begins to approach that level of abuse.

      • Meint Veldman

        Your take on the constitution vs terrorists is semantics. There is a reason Guantanamo is located where it is, there is a reason these ‘enhanced interrogations’ were conducted across the world on foreign soil. That reason is to avoid breaking US law!
        A very dangerous way of interpreting the responsibilities of a nation and its government.
        This is not a discussion about the gruesome acts terrorists do or any sympathy one should have for them what soever. It is not about what others do, it is about what we as the west do, what in this case agents of the US government did. In my view it does not mater where it was done, or to whom, the responsibility remains with the government.

        As far as the constitution protecting foreigners detained by the USA i say to you: if I, as an European get pulled over by lets say a state trooper I have the same rights as any other. (I am married to an American citizen, so I do spend time in your great nation)

        In other words quote: ‘Bill of Rights applies to EVEYONE’.
        By going outside this was circumvented illegally.

    • MukeNecca

      I think before discussing torture the parties should agree on the meaning of the term “torture”. Is the practice of say, skinning people alive, slow crushing of bones, gauging eyes, pulling teeth, rape, etc in the same category as for example sleep deprivation, forcing a person to maintain uncomfortable body position, prolonged exposure to cold, solitary confinement, loud music, waterboarding, humiliation…?

      If the category is “inducement of physical and psychological discomfort” then the answer obviously is yes. Still, it would be disingenuous of anyone to claim that there is no real difference between these procedures. After all if one could and had to choose one would always opt for waterboarding rather than electric current through genitals, or eye gauging.
      But if so, then this very clear and understandable act of discrimination shared by all should necessitate and justify dividing the category of “inducement of physical and psychological discomfort ” into two sub-categories each with a different name. If one is called torture then the other must not.

      Now it should be noted that it is not mere quantitative difference of degree (of discomfort) separating these two groups, but qualitative highly palpable difference which exists between causing permanent
      mutilation-damage to the body and or temporary discomfort induced under medical supervision. Therefore if we insist on calling the former torture, we must invent a different term for the latter and insist on their essential distinction. Otherwise we will have to forever and ineffectively try to ward off absurd claims and warnings like: “…trowing away our western values, our constitutions and basically our humanity to beat them makes us become them…”
      Waterboarding never removed any “western value”. We have never “became them” and never will.

      • Meint Veldman

        So, because its lesser torture, its ok?

        Regardless.. the things the CIA did WAS considered torture by Ronald Reagan as part of treaties signed by him.

        “Waterboarding never removed any “western value”. We have never “became them” and never will.”

        Basically you tel, me it isn’t so, because you say it isn’t so?
        Ever heard of a slippery slope?

        Doing bad things gets easier and easier after you start giving in to your baser instincts, not only for individual human beings, but also for societies. The most famous example lead to the biggest war in history…

        • MukeNecca

          “So, because its lesser torture, its ok?

          I’ve never said it is “lesser torture”. Where the heck did you find that? I’ve argued they differ qualitatively, which means not only by degree, but in substance. Can’t you read?

          Well, try reading again. With some diligence you should be able to understand why I don’t engage the remaining points of your screed.

          • Meint Veldman

            I have long since and before seeing your answer changed my original post.
            It is a pity you do not want to actually talk about the rest of the post. I think however i do understand why.
            it is rather hard to argue against Ronald Reagan classifying these methods as torture, so its best to avoid that point.
            Classifying such things as interrogation instead of torture when done against Americans, or even loved ones by an en enemy likely also brings to much of a bad taste in your mouth.. so its easier to just dismiss rational arguments and give in to ones underbelly…

            Sad.

        • MukeNecca

          Couldn’t resist commenting on that outrageous thing:

          “Ask yourself something else: what is worst: a few people dieing to terrorists or your , or mine, government being able to do whatever they want with you.

          No I could never ask such a question.

          First of all your “a few people dying” is a shockingly
          nonchalant way of referring to deaths (none of them your own) of innocent humans. Now how many must die, be
          maimed for life, how many children, pregnant women ripped to pieces, their faces blown off… before you would your “few” becomes too many? Have you seen
          photos of Israelis victims of Arab suicidal bombings? Were they too “few” for you to justify waterboarding which could have extracted information necessary for
          thwarting the horror? Well then, how about 3000 Americans incinerated in WTC? Still too few?

          And what makes you assume the perfect non sequitur that the option is either “few dead people” or “government being able to do whatever they want with you”? Do refer me to the cases illustrating your point.

          Otherwise, please spare me the sanctimonious moral
          posturing. Your “few people dying to terrorist” gives you away as a insincere person, full of clichés and worthless slogans, but ultimately callous.

          • Meint Veldman

            Posturing? you are posturing! Preaching to the underbelly of emotions.

            This is not about 3000 Americans dieing in the WTC or the ones in Boston. It is about the ones who could have actually be saved by using torture. It is impossible to know how many that would be, but very reasonable to assume it is a lot less then all those terrorism victims named by you.

            You can only interrogate/torture people that you actually caught and as such found. Seeing as terrorists generally operate in cells you will not likely get much from someone you caught about a different operation, wile you already stopped the one they were involved in.

            Logic thus dictates the people saved will be between zero and a few.

          • MukeNecca

            I don’t have much time, so it must be brief, although I am much tempted to kick around your blown up prose full of sound and fury signifying nothing but fraudulence.

            ”Posturing? you are posturing! Preaching to the underbelly of emotions.

            You should perhaps try to educate yourself on the meaning of “posturing” instead of making a fool of yourself.

            OK,
            to make it easier on you:
            When I said “spare me your sanctimonious moral posturing” I meant that I have seen through your totally phony act, these pious, holier-than-thou, smug affectations and I know I’m dealing with a fake.

            “A few dead” here and there, uh? What difference does it make? Certainly not enough to offset the horror of waterboarding for you. Because you have your, oh so humane, principles and they are bigger than life – especially not your own life.

            But if you are so certain your moral grounds being higher than those of the primitives stirred by “underbelly emotions” then why don’t you refute me with arguments anchored in moral principles? Why are you so quickly trying to save you butt with lame, appealing to practicality, arguments?

            Like the eyesore below:

            ”This
            is not about 3000 Americans dieing in the WTC or the ones in Boston. It is about the ones who could have actually be saved by using torture. It is impossible to know how many that would be, but very reasonable to assume it is a lot less then all those terrorism victims named by you.

            Even
            if that screaming absurdity was true and indeed “a lot less …victims” than I think would be saved in what way does it validate your twisted, deeply perverted, moral economy? Are you so insensitive you can’t see your appeal to practicality is as pathetic as it is dumb and reveals the true nature of your sermonizing – which is one clumsy sham.

            But since we are at “practicality” I must ask what bizarre logic lies behind your certainty that waterboarding, even if it could help revealing the plans and thwart the WTC atrocity, would result in saving “a lot less” than 3000 lives. ??? What about the rest of the would be victims? Would they had died of boredom?

            And what is “a lot less” for you? 2000?, 1000? 7? ONE? Then let’s waterboard the bastards and save even ONE from death – even at the expense of your pathetic incoherent and utterly phony morals.

            You are a FAKE, man. I’m through with you. Go away.

          • Meint Veldman

            Personal attacks do not make your arguments true or mine false, in fact you focusing, continuously on me and on one of many points you think you can beat me with, after ignoring the majority likely means you have nothing else to work with.

            Our principles seem to be rather opposed, where I never want to give in to the threat of terrorism you have no problem lowering standards to meet them,
            And yes standards have been lowered, when one American president ( Reagan) clarifies this as torture and an other at a later date decides it is not then the definition of torture got narrowed and the leeway for to act got widened. Sadly, maybe, it is not the easy wide road that leads to the right results though.. it is things like standing up for your principles even when you know you will get a lot of flak, like the very brave mr McCain who now has to listen to you guys suggesting he consorted with the NV?
            Where is the decency?

            But, since lives saved seem to matter more then standing fast against terrorist threats, I guess you are not going to see The Interview either.
            We can not risk some North Korean sympathizer blowing up a theater,.. can we…

          • MukeNecca

            Please have someone translating it into English. But before that try to arrange your thoughts within clear logical structure.
            A hint:
            One may have objection to torture on moral, or practical grounds. You seem to have both in your rejection of the waterboarding. I have repeatedly asked you to refer me to the specific moral rulings prohibiting watrerboarding and substantiate your claim of its uselessness.
            Please make sure that the English translation addresses these problems.
            I’ll try to give it one more shot if you will take care of that.

          • Meint Veldman

            Don’t be silly.. this is not a language problem, my English is not perfect but you certainly can read ‘Ronald Reagan’ can you?

            Asking about a ‘ruling’ on morality says enough. Morality is not about law and rules, it is about being human this discussion is pointless. when not only we are so diametrically opposed, but also there is a total refusal to talk about most of the points brought to bear.

          • MukeNecca

            ”Morality is not about law and rules, it is about being human

            Wow, do you stand in front of a mirror when saying that?

            Anyway, “ruling” is NOT “law and rules”. You should try to educate yourself on its meaning, which is “an authoritative decision or pronouncement, especially one made by a judge”.
            If you can’t see the difference between the two you shouldn’t get into debates about issues more serious than egg boiling.

            “…,it is about being human”.

            Well, well, and what is exactly being human but a cheap phrase very handy for making pleasantly sounding noises covering your own muddled understanding and intellectual laziness. You may feel very “human”, even angelic, reciting that wisdom, but for others you sound like a parrot.

            So do tell me exactly what principles involved in “being human” are being violated when a person who holds information that may save lives of innocent humans is waterboarded?

            Well, if you have problem with that I will present you with hypothetical, but quite realistic scenario and see how your “being human” copes with it.

            Assume that your 11 years old daughter is held captive by a psychopath in a secret location with limited and dwindling supply of breathing air. It is only a matter of 12 hours she will die if not rescued. Now, by a lucky chance the police gets hold on the guy but he refuses to tell were he hid your daughter. The police, who is aware of your noble rejection of torture asks your permission to waterboard the psycho, so the life of your daughter may be saved.

            Now, will you suspend your “being human” for a moment time to make the psycho talk and give the police the “go ahead”, or will you let the girl die in order to keep your humaneness alive?
            Well, I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to apply the necessary pressure on the psycho and there is no doubt in my mind that anyone choosing “being human” by killing his child is absolutely inhuman. Indeed a monster. So which one are you?

            And by the way, your repeated reference to Ronald Reagan’s is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. R.R. is seeking the consent of the Congress to ratification of the UN’s Convention against Torture. I don’t know why you refer to him only. To my knowledge all members
            of the US voted for ratification, including Soviet Union, Libya, Saudi Arabia, China, Syria – I’m not sure about North Korea.. And that should demonstrate the farcical nature of the whole exercise.

            Interestingly, Reagan states explicitly “that the US doesn’t recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article to make confidential investigations of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the United States.” Obviously, he doesn’t think waterboarding, which was used by the CIA at this time is torture.

            And, of course, as long as the border between “torture” and “enhanced interrogation” procedures is not clearly drawn Reagan, or any other head of state, was free to sign the document.

            Anyway, it is getting increasingly boring to debate you. So please, do excuse me if I won’t bother responding to your next ridiculous “moral” rapping.

        • MukeNecca

          Ah look at that nugget of spuriousness:

          ”If Iran did the EXACT same things to US citizens,
          would it be torture? Would it be if North Korea did it to your 11 year old daughter they abducted?

          What a perverted, utterly bogus and idiotic comparison.

          Since when “American citizens” are busy planting bombs in Tehran?

          And you must be crazy even hypothesizing the North Koreans would abduct and torture a 11 years old child so they may get info about the place and time of next civilian bombing in Pyongyang? Performed by whom? Her school buddies?

          Have you gone mad, man? You must have lost not only sense of decency, but also reality if you believe you can sell this atrocious crap?

          I know I said something about being through with you, but I just I couldn’t restrain myself from reacting to such infuriating, brazen goebelesque rant.

          And now really, get lost.

  • Bamaguje

    “…the righteous bombings of militant
    Hamas by Israel which causes but is not aimed at civilian casualties… there has been the understanding
    in this country that we do not treat prisoners harshly as do our
    enemies” – Ruth.

    Let me get this straight, you have no problem with Israel bombing Hamas to kill Jihadis, but you have a problem with harsh interrogation – which inflicts no bodily harm – to gather info to save lives.

    You whiny “torture” cry-babies are in denial and willfully blind.
    Does anyone really believe if Khalid Sheik Mohammed or other captured Jihadi had been asked nicely “where is Osama bin Laden?”… he would have freely volunteered the info?

    We are dealing with Jihadi savages and psychopaths who would have had some training on how to resist interrogation. So clearly some form of coercive interrogation is required to gather the info needed to save innocent lives.
    It’s gotten so absurd with these torture whinies that British interrogators were barred from even yelling at captured Jihadis. Yeah, yelling is torture.
    With this attitude, the West will never win the war on terror.

    See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11292578/Dont-yell-at-terrorist-suspects-soldiers-told.html

  • cree

    I believe it is well accepted that some human beings can develop a very sick pleasure yielding to depravity in acts of torture and having the power over people to use it. This would be a psychopathic monster of a human being that so disgusts the humanity in most people. The psychopath is the rare exception (is less rare in Muslims). To the other extreme and because of a conscience against depravity is the wartime vengeful interrogator who does not have pleasure in his/her duty, but nonetheless feels an obligation to vengeance, which is what war is and will use justification for conscience suppressed methods of forcing an enemy to divulge information relevant to the war’s effort. Prosecuting a war is by no other conclusion, ruthlessness

    All of America got to witness the depravity of 9-11, many in real time. It was an atrocity against innocents of great extent. Many of us can recollect how that day made us feel, vengeance wise. A fact of human nature is that being witness to atrocities will instinctively bring out rage and retribution against what is or has become your very own personal enemy. I can tell you and as many of you know, the bond amongst buddies in combat is a very powerful human phenomenon. You can easily imagine then that an atrocity committed against any on your side in a war will or can likely expect in return from rage retribution, atrocities committed also. It happens; it is a part of the tragedy of war. It is an inescapable reality.

    Of all people, McCain should accept this. Possibly, he can forgive himself (if need be) of any guilt or shame in what he might have divulged from his actual torture. It might be a psychological response why he is against our conscience constrained methods of interrogations; they work. They work if professionally done and with oversight failsafes curbing rage or abuse of power. (A best failed example: Abu Ghraib. That is who we should not be for the obvious damage inflicted reasons it caused in our justification to be at war. But, it is also a best example of the regret of having to go to war.)

  • Dan Knight

    Thanks Daniel.

    McCain should’ve been fired long ago. For being an addled Demo-coddler, if nothing else suits our fancy. Listening to this mess was torture. I’d rather do six minutes of waterboarding myself than have to listen to these two old farts wallow in miscommunication again.

    Reading the comments was also torture.

    I suppose the morons opposed to using waterboarding on terrorists also then agree their fellow travelers may use human shields and destroy innocent lives by the barrel.

    If we give into moronic stupidity, we will then be forced to debate whether or not we can shoot the enemy under any circumstances at all.

    And we always forget to point out: The alternative is to shoot them. Oh, wait, that’s right. Don’t shoot them. Let them go on killing, killing, and killing. Is that the idea? Yes, exactly, that’s the plan!

    Innocent non-violent people have no right to a defense in the mind of Libtards. As long as they have their latte, and they can feel good about themselves, let the children be raped. Got it.

    Those who conflate ‘enhanced interrogation’ with ‘torture’ want to see innocent children, women, and men die. Period.

    They are silent on the non-torture. They are silent on the excessive kindness, medical care, and respect given to men who should be hanged. And they are silent on the ‘collateral damage’ caused by their ignorant and biased excuses and claims. Haven’t we droned enough innocent people for lack of solid ‘intelligence’ to make up for water boarding three murderers?

    How many innocent people have to die to assuage a Libtard’s hatred for those fighting murderers? Answer: All of them!

  • Meint Veldman

    As soon as these people are in US custody they have rights. Rights for representation, for a Judge to hear their case. Etcetera. Even your own courts have pointed this out.

    But since these judges have no jurisdiction in Guantanamo..

    Maybe it is not technically illegal, loopholes work that way, but it certainly is wrong.

    Again, not because of sympathy for any terrorist, as far as I am concerned they can one by one get the highest punishment.. but GIVEN BY A JUDGE!

    If you get around the separation of powers, around human rights, you become your enemy. There is no difference between an Iranian leader deciding to hold ppl without trial and an American leader doing the same except for the ideology behind it.