Jeez... you guys have to PM me about these threads or something. It's gotten totally out of hand and we have gworld as our rep... I can't subscribe to this thread because the outright fire fights that break out here would fill my gmail quota. Im still getting caught up on the past 10 pages so it'll be a while before I can reply.
Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered. Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects—in part—the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future. To prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes. This is an existential fight, to be sure. If they could, Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly. But to defeat them we must prevail in our defense of American political values as well. The mistreatment of prisoners greatly injures that effort. The mistreatment of prisoners harms us more than our enemies. I don't think I'm naive about how terrible are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is an awful business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant their service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them, but some of what had to be done by them to prevail. I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. Nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength—that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Now, in this war, our liberal notions are put to the test. Americans of good will, all patriots, argue about what is appropriate and necessary to combat this unconventional enemy. Those of us who feel that in this war, as in past wars, Americans should not compromise our values must answer those Americans who believe that a less rigorous application of those values is regrettably necessary to prevail over a uniquely abhorrent and dangerous enemy. Part of our disagreement is definitional. Some view more coercive interrogation tactics as something short of torture but worry that they might be subject to challenge under the "no cruel, inhumane or degrading" standard. Others, including me, believe that both the prohibition on torture and the cruel, inhumane and degrading standard must remain intact. When we relax that standard, it is nearly unavoidable that some objectionable practices will be allowed as something less than torture because they do not risk life and limb or do not cause very serious physical pain. For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth—causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture. Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack? In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a standard violated truly in extremis. It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's purposes and practices. The state of Israel, no stranger to terrorist attacks, has faced this dilemma, and in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court declared cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment illegal. "A democratic, freedom-loving society," the court wrote, "does not accept that investigators use any means for the purpose of uncovering truth. The rules pertaining to investigators are important to a democratic state. They reflect its character." Complete text: Torture's Terrible Toll By Sen. John McCain A great article which shows the difference between a war hero, statesman and a man who didn't go to war and his political achievement is the result of his family connections.
The man is insane IMHO. A few gallons short of a full tank. A great American and war hero, but I really think (especially after his run for President) that the POW days had quite an affect on his mind. Hopefully this is his last term.
Nobody can agree with some one on every issue but the man is honest, moral and has a sense of decency that deserves respect. These are exactly the same qualities that the Bush & Dick team lacks. I only hope that the rest of America is more intelligent than you are. His statement shows that he cares about America and the life of soldiers that fight and die for protecting it. I am sure that is not something that you think or care about since your heroes don't either.
His run for president gave me more respect for him and less for Bush, interesting as to how anyone could see it being the opposite.
More interesting stuff from the mail bag: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill Quotes from Leading Dems during the last few years: Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all." Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons." John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons." Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process." Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11. In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability. Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein." Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." For the record: Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.
I do not know the causes, but I agree with you on the effects. John McCain is scary. John and I simply do not place the same, or even similar, values on freedom.
Isn't amazing how everyone's tune changed when someone actually decided to do something about it. What, it was not someone, it was the entire congress, as well as the president.... Hmmm.... Let's just ponder that.
John McCain went to war and served his country while you hide under your bed and talk big. I totally agree with you, little willy and John McCain don't have similar values on freedom, John is a war hero and you are, what can I say "little willy".
Meanwhile, hundreds more terrorist attacks since last month. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm#attacks What our country needs most right now, is a good dewussification program. gworld, hows your favorite al qaida member, Jose Padilla?
But the truth remains... John McCain is a nut job No one disputes the "hero status". But to think for one moment that it had no ill affect on his mind? That's a bit presumptuous to me. He certainly is scary as Will said!
Might I ask why this is? Because he does not completely agree with the Republican agenda perhaps? I'd love to hear it, more than he's a 'nut job' and 'scary', doesn't make a very good argument. I strongly disagree with him on several issues including immigration, but where he is a 'nut' job I realy do not see.
Of course he agrees completely with the "Republican Agenda". But he also agrees completely with the "Lefts" agenda. He agrees with his own agenda too. He pretty much agrees with anything and everything, while disagreeing with it at the same time. Take for instance the ass whomping he took from GWB in the 2000 Campaign. After he dropped out he sang Bush's praises and did all he could to get him elected, all the while complaining and bad mouthing him at the same time. McCain is at best a political whore. He is and has been doing everything he does to gain support in all circles because he still wants to be President. Here is a guy that will support gays publicly and in person, but ban gay marriage, not that I give a crap, but he is always on both sides of the issue, while "not" on both sides of the issue, at the SAME TIME. He is the ultimate in Polischizophrenia! The man is just not quite all there in the head. No one out there will make these comments publicly because God forbid we dis the war hero. I'm not afraid of saying that the man is nuts. There's nothing wrong with that. After all, 7 years having scumbags piss and shit on you, torture you, berate you... Hell, we would all go a little nuts. Don't be fooled by McCain. He is after one thing and one thing only; the White House. McCain is doing what is best for all the McCains inside him.
Moral sense of deceny? Are you sure we are talking about the same subject? Our President has a "Moral sense of deceny", I certainly do not think he is a nut job.
I'll give you him backing up Bush, he should not have done. That is one mark I lost respect for him on, I however do like that he speaks his mind and is able to do so without being a bitch to his party in most cases. More than I can say for most out there. Doesn't make him nuts in the least.
Well if you had read my post you would have seen that he backed Bush while bashing him. He did this for the same reasons most democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths, so right or wrong, he could be right no matter what. When was the last time McCain actually spoke his mind on an issue and stuck to one side of the issue, not both sides at the same time? Answer, never. He is for and against everything and anything. One thing no one can argue about our president is that he makes up his mind based on what he feels is in the best interest of our country, not what is in his best interest for his legacy or politcal career. He did that the first 4 years, and continues to do so during his next 4 years. His mind is not made up by deciding what is popular at the time. And he is not influenced by polls, focus groups or fellow nutcases like Feingold, as McCain was.