McCain’s alleged opposition to torture

August 17, 2007

John McCain was on The Daily Show last night and got huge applause after one particular exchange:

Stewart: You see Romney, like, “I’d triple the size of Guantanamo!” Giuliani’s like, “I’d eat the testicles of terrorists!” Why does it have to be that way? …

McCain: Well, let me just tell you. I’d close Guantanamo Bay and I’d declare we never torture another person in American custody.

Yes, that’s very nice. McCain, with nothing left to lose, is willing to stand as the only Republican presidential hopeful to oppose torture. When he was riding high in the polls, the senator wasn’t nearly as bold, but now he’s willing to say out loud what should be obvious anyway. I guess it’s a breakthrough.

And while Stewart and the audience seemed duly impressed, perhaps we can pause for a moment to remember that McCain co-sponsored the Military Commissions Act last year, which not only eliminated habeas, but included a definition of torture so “unacceptably narrow,” it was a “virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.”

So, hurray for McCain for wanting to declare an end to Bush’s torture policy. If McCain hadn’t had a hand in shaping it, this might even be persuasive.

GOP SOP: He was for it before I was against it.

Stupid SOB.

  • I think we need to cut McCain some slack. He was one of the few who stood up against torture in the debate over the bill you reference, and maybe, for all we know, the final bill was the best that could be passed at the time. (If I remember correctly, the neo-cons still had control of Congress when that was passed).

    That doesn’t mean McCain liked the result, but he may have thought some limitations were better than essentially none, which would have effectively been the case unless that bill was passed.

    McCain has always been against torture, and if we start holding him to a 100-percent-perfect standard, then we better do the same for every candidate from every party and none of them would pass the test.

  • Pete Abel,

    The centrist argument doesn’t apply here. Some things should be compromised, but the humane treatment of prisoners is not one of them.

  • “That doesn’t mean McCain liked the result, but he may have thought some limitations were better than essentially none, which would have effectively been the case unless that bill was passed.”

    Not true. The Supreme Court had slapped the Bush Administration down for the procedures they were using to try the detainees; if the McCain “torture light is OK” bill had not been passed, they would have been unable to proceed at all.

    He gets no pass from me. And his going along with the program is all the worse because he used his reputation as an opponent of torture to lend legitimacy to the bill.

  • Doubtful,

    I agree, and I don’t recommend compromise on these subjects, but sometimes in the twisted halls of Congress, you don’t have a choice.

    Retr2327,

    Fair enough. But remind me, did the S.C. make its decision before or after the bill passed?

  • Look, I’m not a McCain flunkie. I’m not saying his vote on the bill was the best decision. All I’m suggesting is that we need to evaluate the man on the totality of his record, and the totality of that record includes time in a Vietnam POW camp and a long history of standing up against torture and in favor of the Geneva Conventions. If McCain he felt they could have passed a stronger bill, I”m sure he would have held out longer and made it so. If in the end, he thought it was the best they could do at that point in time, knowing there would be other opportunities to make it stronger down the road, then perhaps that’s why he voted yes. There are other candidates on this issue that our ire should be directed to; and there are other issues on which we can more productively critique McCain. But we shouldn’t on one up-or-down vote on a single bill at a single point in time damn his entire record. I wouldn’t want that done to me, and I suspect none of you would want it done to you.

  • You see Romney, like, “I’d triple the size of Guantanamo!”

    Sadly, that’s the fake news / joke version, when the real-life quote, “I’d double Guantanamo” is bad enough.

  • I wouldn’t want that done to me, and I suspect none of you would want it done to you.

    Ask me if I ever get elected to office, swear to uphold the Constitution and am faced with the choice of defending or crapping on the Constitution. I still don’t see where “no choice” kicks in on this vote, but for the record:

    1. McCain’s time in a POW camp makes what he did even more inexcusable, because guess what? Not only was it wrong, it will make it very hard for the US to say jack if one of our soldiers spends a year in a tiger cage.

    2. Even if he had voted no there are still plenty of reasons to loathe the man. But he didn’t vote no so I think of all his ‘mavericking’ before he rolled over first.

  • McCain was my senator for many years, and I used to respect him immensely. He wasn’t afraid to speak out against the party line if the party line didn’t match his (or our) values. He respected truth, the Constitution, and America. Or so I thought.

    I once thought I’d vote for him, should he run for President. And then he started toeing Bush’s line, and everything changed. He went from honorable man-of-his-word to quivering, fearful GOP pansy (or should I say patsy?) seemingly overnight.

    I have no respect for a man who can’t stand up for what’s right. No respect for someone who will do only what’s politically expedient, not what’s best for this country. What he said on The Daily Show is just another example of his pandering: he’s doing what Bush does, spouting what sounds good, ignoring the fact that what he has done speaks far louder than the lies he tells about his actions. He’s hoping he can, like Bush, create an alternate reality and get us to buy.

    I can tell you this: I am not buying. He’s lost all credit with me. And I hope against hope my fellow Americans can see him for what he is: a miserable, lying bastard who will say and do anything to win the presidency.

  • McCain states ” I’d declare we never torture another person in American custody.”

    That is the same policy nondenial denial of the Sadist-in-Chief and his black hooded buddies in the White House. They both ship captives to other’s custody to torture and convientaly reinvent the definition of American torture each time they are caught in a new lie.
    I’m disappointed that Stewart did not pick up on that.

    McCain hasn’t “declare an end to Bush’s torture policy.” He has embraced the entirety of it.

  • Yes, that’s very nice. McCain, with nothing left to lose, is willing to stand as the only Republican presidential hopeful to oppose torture.

    Uh, actually, Congressman Ron Paul has also gone on the record as opposing torture, so McCain’s not alone on that one.

  • You have to remember, though, that way back in the first GOP debate, McCain said esentially the same thing. Being against torture is not new for him, and is one of several things that I think he has got right–despite his view on the war in Iraq.

    • Comments are closed.