QOTE
After reading Andrew Sullivan here…I thought I’d ask, was McCain ever really tortured? It is a valid question. If we don’t torture, then there is no way what happened to McCain was torture.
About the Author (Author Profile)
hiding in the openComments (55)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Comment on QOTE by Not Brian | autocarsinsurance | August 19, 2008
Damn! You beat me to this post!
Sullivan makes an excellent point.
Heyyyyyy, wait a minute….
That means –
if McCain WAS tortured….
nah, not possible, not here not now
what’s best is McCain voted in favor of these techniques. Which really means he was in the Hilton I guess.
“Now the kicker: in the Military Commissions Act, McCain acquiesced to the use of these techniques against terror suspects by the CIA. And so the tortured became the enabler of torture. Someone somewhere cried out in pain for the same reasons McCain once did. And McCain let it continue.
These are the prices people pay for power. ”
Ouch
Does anyone else think that McCain should lose his torture talking point?
he should be called out on it that is for sure
It depends entirely upon the definition of “torture”
This is a ridiculous charge because it basically argues that everything any country has done for the last 50 years can be defined as torture. But hey, sounds like desperation to me.
Sharon,
Way to miss the point. There is not such thing as torture you dummy.
Mike,
Maybe that was a tired dig at Clinton (William Jefferson not HR), but Cheney, Addington, Yoo, etc. defined what torture is NOT. It is exactly what the VC did to McCain. So I think that’s the point.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the things done to McCain were torture or they weren’t. Personally, I think they were, but hey, what do I know?
Pandora,
Your thinking is so pre 9/11.
I know… I keep forgetting EVERYTHING has changed.
Personally I believe torture is any form of physical coercion. Period.
I believe in the rule of law and doing on to others as we would have done to us. I always find it odd that conservatives claim the moral high ground while we invade countries, kill thousands of civilians, and torture people like barbarians. Life begins at conception, but it appears human rights, constitutional protections, and the right to keep living begin whenever a conservative idealogue decides to grant them to the guilty until proven innocent – an moronic and indefensible position (yes you Sharon).
That said, I think minimizing what McCain went through is cheap. I would imagine a conservative or undecided would look on it much like a liberal looked on the Swiftboating of Kerry… I was not at all a Kerry fan, but you have to feel for anybody who has their service record twisted for political debate by a bunch of bloggers and muckrakers.
I also think McCain’s support for the administration’s tactics is hypocritical and morally bankrupt considering he is touting his own experience as a badge of his patriotism and qualification to lead.
well said
Way to miss the point. There is not such thing as torture you dummy.
*
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
“I always find it odd that conservatives claim the moral high ground while we invade countries, kill thousands of civilians, and torture people like barbarians.”
Pretty ridiculous statement considering the US military conducts some of the most humane warfare in the history of military conflict. The way the U.S. military engages in armed conflict is relatively new as far as military history is concerned.
We’ve grown accustomed to “war” being something with precision-guided bombs that hit specific targets and rarely if ever kill civilains, where churches, hospitals, etc. are “safe zones.” As far as the history of warfare is concerned the actions of the U.S. military are about as far from “brutal” as possible.
Rape and brutality among soldiers is the exception (and receives media coverage) rather than the rule, and after fighting has died down said army is involved in rebuilding and helping the people (as opposed to say, leveling the entire country and raping, pillaging, and slaughtering whomever they see fit)
War is brutal, war is hell, but war as we fight it is relatively benign when viewed within the scope of history. We’re hardly a bunch of “barbarians” Take a look at the conflict in South Ossetia if you want a more realistic view of how wars are really conducted in the modern era. We’re saints by comparison.
That said, I think minimizing what McCain went through is cheap.
I think it is hard to read Sullivan’s article as minimizing what McCain went though. What it does do is point out that McCain acquiesced to or colluded with government run by his party to sanction the same methods of torture that he was subject to. And I think that asking him about the ultimate flip flop here goes directly to asking about moral fitness and leadership. No one is twisting anything about his service — just asking why the horrific treatment he was subject to (that his government strenuously objected to) is just fine for our prisoners. That question is very much in bounds.
“Pretty ridiculous statement considering the US military conducts some of the most humane warfare in the history of military conflict.”
I hope you are simply ignorant.
There have been over 94,000 violent deaths since we invaded Iraq. That is confirmed cases, it only includes identifed bodies. Including the infants, elderly, and other dead due to a lack of proper water, medical treatment, electricity, etc… the Lancet puts the estimate over 250,ooo.
99% of those deaths would not have occurred had we not invaded a non religious state with the highest standard of living and education level in the region (despite 10 years of sanctions). Our legacy is the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
So what would the threshold be for inhumane? Was 9-11 humane because they did not come close to matching our total? How many deaths is humane? Is it only humane when the people are brown and live far away?
I guess it is all relative Mike… if any of the dead were your family would their lives have the same value you assess to faceless people on the other side of the world? Would you be so quick to call it humane if it was happening in Texas? How about Delaware?
‘Not Brian’ obviously knows nothing about warfare.
In Africa we hear about the AIDS epidemic, but no one admits that the number one process of spreading aids in AFRICA is through tribal warfare, and the subsequent rape of the women of the village.
The hacking off of hands and feet of the young men, by the invading tribes, to handicap their use as future soldiers, apparently must be regarded as a humane preventative to future wars?
And ‘not brian’ wants to describe our soldiers as barbaric?
By your logic no matter how many people we kill it is somehow better because we are not performing mass rape or ethnic cleansing?
So our standard for ethical war making is that the US does not stoop to the levels of the rebels in Darfaur? I think we hit a new low when we justify our conquests by saying our tactics are more professional than the barbarians ethnic cleansing in Africa.
We have a professional military. I am not blanketing them as brutal, but bombing, invading, attempting to control a country and the fall out is a mess. Obviously. When we decided to go we knew what the result would be. I a not talking about the morality of soldiers, I am talking about the morality of putting then there in the first place (and condemning 4000 to death and tens of thousands more to permanent injury).
Are we dropping lollipops and flowers?
Obviously you know more since you trained in the military. Are the point of cluster bombs humanitarian? I am sure that we never could have conceived that a ton of high quality plastic explosive dropped in a Baghdad neighborhood could cause collateral damage (well, it is laser guided, it only blows up the stuff we want to blow up).
I doubt you are a US Army Infantry Officer. If you were and you’d seen combat I think you would be more reticent about defending Mike’s assertion that our war is humane by dragging in a red herring.
The question posed has to do with Iraq, Sir.
Have we tortured Iraqis, Sir?
Have we acted humanly in Iraq, Sir?
We have not. That is a plain fact.
Attacking the country in the first place was an afront to hman decency, Sir.
You would know that if you were a US Army Infantry Officer – which you are NOT!
Sir.
I just want to know why Mike came out with the OXYMORON of humane warfare. WAR IS NOT HUMANE!!!!! War can be justified (WWII for example) but it is never humane and therefore should only be used in the most severe of circumstances. Our current president thinks that war is fun and that since we are just trying to make things the way he thinks they ought to be then it is okay. Yes, our military has achieved a high degree of efficiency at correctly attacking targets but still lacks in perfect precision that they are the correct targets. Also, Mike how is collateral damage humane?
I think it goes like this, Phantom…
Bush’s wars are humane, everyone else’s are not.
McCain was tortured, everyone else was not.
Phantom . . . right on. To say “the US military conducts some of the most humane warfare in the history of military conflict” is one of the most ridiculous statements.
War is hell on earth. And that is why it should not be taken on as lightly as it recently has.
some people get all chubby in the pants when they watch The Dirty Dozen or The Green Beret’s (George Takaii my favorite)
They remember the good old days when men lined up, challenged each other and then killed each other graciously.
Man, war was so civil back then….
I don’t know nemski, killing someone with a machete is way more brutal then just blowing out the back of their head with an M-16 from 50 yards out….
Way to completely miss the point of my post people. Did I say “war is humane?” No. I said that, when taken in the context of military history U.S. combat and tactics are extraordinarily humane.
Context people. Context and history.
It’s kind of like saying spousal abuse is tough thing, but I don’t hit my wife that hard.
humane warfare – jumbo shrimp – stone balloon
yep, we were so kind to those Native Americans weren’t we…?
remember that time we used Napalm? ohhh those were the days..
Man, I really wanted to be the guy that got to use the flame thrower in WW2
we really are a noble bunch when it comes to killing.
I am a Honor Graduate of the Infantry Officer Basic Course, Ft Benning Georgia. And I completed the Infantry Officer Advanced course. I retired as a Major. That said, I am trained in the conduct of warfare and the leadership of soldiers as we close with and capture or kill the enemy.
In response to #22. Every and all civilians of voting age at the time these recent wars were started, share the responsibility of these wars. The Generals do not choose the wars. The President does with the CONSENT of congress.
On your opening comment:”By your logic no matter how many people we kill it is somehow better because we are not performing mass rape or ethnic cleansing?” == Why we go to war, and our conduct during that war, is far superior to almost all other countries. The choice of targets, the avoidance of civilians, Not using civilians as shields, Not using indiscriminate mines and traps, AND MOST of ALL NOT raping, pillaging, killing civilian leaders, teachers, missionaries and clergy; does separate us from those para-militaries in Africa and the Balkans. One rape by an American Soldier gets more worldwide attention than 100,000 rapes and molestations in Africa and the Balkans.
There is a BIG difference in how the USA conducts warfare. There was no RED HERRING in comparing U.S. to African Tribes, or to the Russians, or to the newly independent Eastern European countries.
Compare them to independent POLAND, that has not shown any levels of ethnic cleansing and brutality.
.
If you wanted a Red Herring, lets discuss the shootings in Wilmington.
4 PM, and no witnesses to the woman shot in the head on 300 s. Van Buren Street? No Snitching? Failure of police and the courts to enforce the laws we do have? Plea Bargaining away the gun possession of a person prohibited?
Blaming drugs and ignoring the violence?
The execution on S Franklin St?
The Dunkin Donuts robbery and murder?
.
No combat ribbon.
Figures.
Go soak your head.
DBB #28,
“I don’t know nemski, killing someone with a machete is way more brutal then just blowing out the back of their head with an M-16 from 50 yards out….”
Then why quibble over the cruel and unusual punishment processes used for the civilian death penalty? If you think that death is just death, and the process is inconsequential?
In Response to 34:
There are extremists and nationalists the world over who believe theirs is the justifiable war. Ours was justified (with lies) and we have rationalized that our war is beter than the other guys (who probably think the same as us – Russia for instance).
Rationalize it any way you want. Killing is killing.
I am ashamed my country did it, and as far as I am concerned we are all responsible for each and every death on each side of the conflict – I can agree with you there.
I also believe that any conspiracy to ‘sell’ the war with manufactured intel is treasonous. I think Bush should be sent to the Hague to face charges for war crimes.
Brian – There are different types of violence, some justified, some not.
Officer,
Why we go to war, and our conduct during that war, is far superior to almost all other countries
did you really just say that with a straight face?
all those people we tortured? Oh and no WMD’s.
Yep, we are a noble bunch of War Mongers.
go pledge your allegiance to the 2a’ers, they aren’t as bright when it comes to the lies about us in Iraq.
I guess we’re not thinking of the same war, here.
Please tell me how trying to acquire access to more oil is morally superior to, let’s say, struggling for independence/struggling against separatists to preserve one’s nation.
x,
he forgot about the few wedding parties we took out by “accident”
Mike –
Agreed – self defense against someone you have done nothing outside your rights to antagonize is justifiable. After that it is a slippery slope.
Put as many justifications on it, end of the day we are there for access to discounted oil and no bid contracts. I guess the exercise is to figure out how many bodies you think you can justify for he thing you want… my problem is that a wealthy and free nation has to invent the excuses to justify this stuff as it is pure greed and opportunism. We could have conserved, we could have raised fuel economy standards, we could have pursued economic policies that discourage so much importation of so many resources… we choose to kill people instead.
If they were white people here in Delaware and we actually saw the bodies on the news I think the great moral relavatism in the justification of war might be approached a little differently.
I think if it were our people we would not consider the justification quite the same way.
Cracks me up to watch Bush talk about national soverignty for Georgia! The Russians said the same thing to us about Iraq 5 years ago…
to that point, funny how with the Georgia/Russia thing they talk about the gasp…20,000 displaced Georgians..
Nevermind that refugee camps have practically become towns in Africa..
Or the 50 year old refugee (read as prison) camps that we call the occupied territories in Israel…
azing!
“I guess we’re not thinking of the same war, here.”
No, we just have wildly different understandings of the brutality of war throughout history. We do a damn good job minimizing civilian casualties, an extraordinary feat considering we’re fighting a largely urban war where insurgents like to use civilians as shields.
Brian – Let’s not even get into Israel here. I do agree with you on one point though. If the mideast had no oil we’d completely ignore them and let them all slaughter each other (the way we ignore Africa.
Well – actually, if there was no oil there they would not be killing each other anyway.
You know when the origin of Islamic Fundamentalism was as a political and religious movement? Was not until the 50’s… after we and the Brits had worked their governments and their ways of life over and they started realizing they had something underground worth fighting over…
‘We do a damn good job minimizing civilian casualties, an extraordinary feat considering we’re fighting a largely urban war where insurgents like to use civilians as shields.’
As Roger Watters called it – ‘The Bravery of Being Out of Range’ – much easier to justify when it is someone else’s friends and family… very Christian of you…
DBB,
Why did you ignore the rest of the paragraph? The details of the argument about our military were here –
“The choice of targets, the avoidance of civilians, Not using civilians as shields, Not using indiscriminate mines and traps, AND MOST of ALL NOT raping, pillaging, killing civilian leaders, teachers, missionaries and clergy; does separate us from those para-militaries in Africa and the Balkans. One rape by an American Soldier gets more worldwide attention than 100,000 rapes and molestations in Africa and the Balkans.”
Those details were stated with a straight face.
Jason330,
#36 RSVP
And your experience is WHAT?
OK… Tactically we are different.
Once we decide to go the deaths are still our responsibility. No matter how professionally and responsibly the civilians we kill at checkpoints, as collateral damage in bombings, or due to suicide bombers from the resistance – we created the war. We also created the resistance, the majority of the ‘enemy’ did not exist until we went to get ‘our’ oil. We sent the people and equipment there and we destabilized the country.
Iraq was not a legitimate war in the first place. We were not defending ourselves, this was a war of opportunism. This was using a horrible attack on our soil that originated for the most part in Saudi Arabia and using it as an excuse to execute an invasion that the Neo-Cons have been discussing since 1992. They never talked about peace and democracy, they talked about regime change for energy security.
I respect anyone who has military experience. It does not give you a trump card in any discussion of foreign policy.
#52,
Basically I agree.
I really agree, “It does not give you a trump card in any discussion of foreign policy.”
During my tactical service, I considered that ‘The leaders of my country would make those decisions, on foreign policy.’
‘Iraq was not a legitimate war in the first place. ”
There’s our fundamental difference. You say it wasn’t “legitimate” I say it was. All else considered, Saddam’s wanton violation of UN weapons resolutions for 13 years was reason enough. What good is the UN if its resolutions aren’t backed up with force?
Please note:
The UN did not resolve to end the issue with with force. Part of the reason was because the lead weapons inspector did not believe there were WMDs in Iraq.
We were certain though!
How is that search going? Or have we forgotten the original excuse for going in there and moved on to the terrorists (who never trained there) or democracy (which will never happen with the current leadership and coalitions)….
But we were not there for oil, that is for sure!
High tech mugging by the world’s (former) bully… The funny thing about all of the chest beating is that the war proved one thing – we are not the super power we used to be – and we will pay for losing the deterrent value and the weakening of the economy due to a war that will probably top out at a total cost of $3 trillion.
If you are so pro Iraq war how about you cut me a check for my family’s $30K share of the cost, we’ll call it even!