The McCain ‘Torture’ Ban
aka The ‘Do it When You Need To’ Torture Ban.
I’ve gone without comment on this topic for a while, but C-SPAN was replaying a town-hall meeting with Senator Barbara Boxer from 12/12 where she responded to ‘community members’ (planted questions) who wanted to see the President held back from his ‘torture policies.’ So it got my ire back up, and I have to review what has transpired, because this farce has been so blatantly misreported, it needs to be rehashed.
To ensure the measure garnered sufficient public support, our wonderfully unbiased media has assigned the Senator the same “absolute moral authority” on torture that Ms. Cindy Sheehan was granted on the topic of Iraq. This is the same breed of “absolute moral authority” that made a convincingly unsupportable case for the war in Iraq being arranged by a secret Jewish Kabala, one which controls most federal government operations. But, as we all know, Senator McCain was a POW in Viet Nam—so he clearly knows more about the U.S. policy on torture than anyone else. Sounds logical to me.
The lynch-pin of Senator McCain’s beliefs regarding torture is that it is ineffective. I can understand him if he believes that, and would be accepting of measures that reflect that ideology. However, as has not been reported by any major media outlet (I’ve only heard mention of this on some right-wing, anti-McCain talk shows, and liberal blogs), the McCain torture bill permits under certain circumstances. For instance, a situation arises in which a suspect is detained who has specific information regarding an imminent bomb detonation, chemical device dispersal, or biological agent release. In this situation, government agents are permitted to engage in acts considered torture in order to extract the vital information.
If torture is ineffective, then why allow it then? Inconsistent.
I understand the argument that says torture, when applied constantly to a detainee over a long period of time where no useful information will likely be revealed, can be ineffective in a sense. However, by the allowance of the provision in his bill, Senator McCain must recognize that torture can be effective. Furthermore, it supersedes the ban itself, by having an act of Congress on the books that specifically allows torture. Did someone say incriminating evidence?
Also, you may not have heard because no one wants to cover it: Sadam Huessein and his friend and ally Ms. Cindy Sheehan received a late Christmas present in the form of the discovery of more mass graves in Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/27/iraq.main/index.html.
aka The ‘Do it When You Need To’ Torture Ban.
I’ve gone without comment on this topic for a while, but C-SPAN was replaying a town-hall meeting with Senator Barbara Boxer from 12/12 where she responded to ‘community members’ (planted questions) who wanted to see the President held back from his ‘torture policies.’ So it got my ire back up, and I have to review what has transpired, because this farce has been so blatantly misreported, it needs to be rehashed.
To ensure the measure garnered sufficient public support, our wonderfully unbiased media has assigned the Senator the same “absolute moral authority” on torture that Ms. Cindy Sheehan was granted on the topic of Iraq. This is the same breed of “absolute moral authority” that made a convincingly unsupportable case for the war in Iraq being arranged by a secret Jewish Kabala, one which controls most federal government operations. But, as we all know, Senator McCain was a POW in Viet Nam—so he clearly knows more about the U.S. policy on torture than anyone else. Sounds logical to me.
The lynch-pin of Senator McCain’s beliefs regarding torture is that it is ineffective. I can understand him if he believes that, and would be accepting of measures that reflect that ideology. However, as has not been reported by any major media outlet (I’ve only heard mention of this on some right-wing, anti-McCain talk shows, and liberal blogs), the McCain torture bill permits under certain circumstances. For instance, a situation arises in which a suspect is detained who has specific information regarding an imminent bomb detonation, chemical device dispersal, or biological agent release. In this situation, government agents are permitted to engage in acts considered torture in order to extract the vital information.
If torture is ineffective, then why allow it then? Inconsistent.
I understand the argument that says torture, when applied constantly to a detainee over a long period of time where no useful information will likely be revealed, can be ineffective in a sense. However, by the allowance of the provision in his bill, Senator McCain must recognize that torture can be effective. Furthermore, it supersedes the ban itself, by having an act of Congress on the books that specifically allows torture. Did someone say incriminating evidence?
Also, you may not have heard because no one wants to cover it: Sadam Huessein and his friend and ally Ms. Cindy Sheehan received a late Christmas present in the form of the discovery of more mass graves in Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/27/iraq.main/index.html.
posted by Hickmania at
9:33 PM
1 Comments:
Huh... nothing substantial to add. I find the exception perplexing, along with the administration's reluctance to support it after declaring that they don't torture. Whatever. I just assume I'm not getting the full story (i.e. why they oppose it) from the cable news networks.
Really, though, at first I thought the title was the McTorture ban. I like that name way better.
By
X, at 12:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home