When push comes to shove, McCain was against torture before he was for it

February 14, 2008

It’s pretty obvious that most campaign reporters and much of the political establishment consider John McCain a man of unshakable principle. It’s equally obvious that this reputation is utterly ridiculous. Take yesterday’s vote on banning torture, for example.

To briefly recap, a spending bill to finance the nation’s intelligence efforts went to conference, where Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) added an important provision — mandating one interrogation standard for the entire U.S. government. The Feinstein measure requires the intelligence community to abide by the same interrogation standards articulated in the Army Field Manual, which, of course, prohibit torture.

For McCain, this should have been an easy one. After all, he recently argued, rather forcefully, during a Republican presidential debate, “I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about.”

That was then. When push came to shove, and the nation looked to the senator take a stand on principle, McCain balked. He was against torture before he was for it.

[Yesterday], the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) establishing one interrogation standard across the government. The bill requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding.

Just hours ago, the Senate voted in favor of the bill, 51-45.

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding.

It’s a real profile in courage, isn’t it? As Brian Beutler noted, “The waterboarding section … is the reason the president’s threatening to veto it. It’s the reason McCain sneaked into the chamber, voted with his party against it, and sneaked back out.”

It’s not that there was no Republican support for the policy — Sens. Collins, Hagel, Lugar, Smith and Snowe — all voted with the Dems — it’s just that McCain, who claims to oppose torture, wasn’t among them.

Marty Lederman considers the details.

Senator McCain rightly insists that the U.S. may not (i) torture; (ii) engage in cruel treatment prohibited by Common Article 3; or (iii) engage in conduct that shocks the conscience, under the McCain Amendment. He also insists that waterboarding violates each of these legal restrictions, that the Bush Administration’s legal analysis has been dishonest and flatly wrong, and that we need “a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.”

The Feinstein Amendment would have accomplished all of these objectives, but Senator McCain voted against it, presumably because he wishes that the CIA be permitted to continue the use of other of its enhanced techniques, apart from waterboarding. Those techniques are reported to include stress positions, hypothermia, threats to the detainee and his family, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation. Senator McCain has not explained which of these he thinks are not torture and cruel treatment, nor which he would wish to preserve for use by the CIA. But if the President does as he has promised and follows Senator McCain’s lead by vetoing this bill, the CIA will continue to assert the right to use all of these techniques — and possibly waterboarding, as well.

By contrast, Senator Clinton supports the Feinstein amendment, and Senator Obama does, too.

If Senator McCain believes that there are particular “enhanced” techniques that are not in the Field Manual, but that are also not torture or cruel treatment, and wishes to allow the CIA to use them, he should identify what they are, and offer legislation that would authorize those, and those only, techniques, in addition to those listed in the Field Manual. Otherwise, despite all his worthy efforts in this area, Senator McCain is now facilitating the CIA’s use of techniques that are unlawful, including some that are torture even by Senator McCain’s own lights.

But that’s all right, of course, because John McCain is a man who believes in principles — weak, malleable principles.

Typical McCain. I am still out of the country…is the MSM even remotely interested in his flip-flop or is it just di rigeur?

  • Its hard to believe that after all the grand standing about cruel and inhumane treatment being torture that McCain would actually vote against an amendment that actually banned torture but then again how else could he win support from the right wing nut jobs of his own party. I used to think McCain was a republican that I could vote for but as he has proved over the last 8 years he is just like the rest of them when push comes to shove. Soon we’ll get a chance to really see what McCain feels about all the american people when the senate takes up emergency spending for Iraq with funds for LIHEAP but then again he may not have to vote because rethugs will require 60 votes. If they do I hope that the dems stand tall and not approve anymore funding for Iraq unless their ready to provide funds for americans at home.

  • In a way this goes back to yesterday’s item where McCain was calling on Obama for “specifics.” I’ve been thinking about this and I’m betting the whole “specifics” thing is about getting your opponent on record saying one thing, so you can throw it in their face when they say something different later on. The whole “flip-flopper” deal. It’s a Pavrovian, knee-jerk for Republicans.

    I remember McCain being all about stopping torture years ago. But, it’s not surprising he’s for it now that he’s a “liberal Republican” trying to look conservative. To Hillary and Barack I say, “waste him.” Hit him with this over and over and over again. Make it stick.

  • “MsJoanne said:
    Typical McCain. I am still out of the country…is the MSM even remotely interested in his flip-flop or is it just di rigeur?”

    I have heard no mention of it, and I painfully watched 2 hours of MSNBC last evening.

  • I’ve added this fundamental flip-flop to my Iraq Quagmire death chart. I’ve been wondering how to tie in “the hug” with that chart, and this serves nicely.

    Always worth underscoring: the slow-down in US deaths which American propagandists suggest is tied to the “surge” (they don’t say how exactly) is very nicely tied to Sadr’s decision to quit attacking so he could resume his seminary studies.

  • Come on, “flip-flopping” is second-nature to all politicians, not just Republicans. It’s what they do. They figure out which side of the issue will garner them the most support at that time, and then they set out to fellate those who are behind that side. When that stance no longer suits their purposes, they take a deep breath and dive in on the other side.

    Why is anyone still surprised by this? Those who come to power seek to hold onto it; I don’t mean to go all Machiavelli here, but it is what it is.

    I mean, there are certainly times when politicians change their minds because they are actually somewhat intelligent, and new information has led them to believe something other than what they originally believed…

    That said, this is rather disgusting. There was a time when I would have strongly considered voting for McCain. Love the irony of American politics; in order to win the elections, you have to turn yourself into someone no thoughtful person would ever want to vote for.

  • I think you’ve got this all wrong. First off, when he said life isn’t Jack Bauer, well, Jack Bauer doesn’t waterboard either. He just drowns them so long that their souls confess from Hell, and that because we can’t do that, perhaps we should do the next best thing (ie, waterboard). And secondly, when he said “he didn’t think they need to do anything else,” he meant it. And by “anything else” he meant having Congress pass stupid laws banning necessary inducements to help non-Americans (and others) understand the benefits of free speech.

    I guess some people just aren’t that good at understanding straight talk.

  • Why is anyone still surprised by this? Those who come to power seek to hold onto it; I don’t mean to go all Machiavelli here, but it is what it is.

    Nate – No one here is surprised. Just becausee we’re highlighting a flip-flop doesn’t mean that we think it’s unusual. The whole point is that McCain has an undeserved reputation for “straight talk” and so it does us good to highlight the fact that it’s undeserved. As you said, there was a time when you would have strongly considered voting for McCain. I’m sure there are lots more people like that, which is why it never hurts to point out that he’s not the straight talker the media portrays him to be. The more it’s talked about, the more his reputation will get tarnished.

    And secondly, I dispute the idea that polticians need to do this. I see why they DO do this, but think it’s usually a mistake. The truth is that these guys really aren’t that bright and aren’t good at playing the long-game. That’s one thing I like about Obama, is that he really seems to have thought his stuff out and I see little he’ll need to totally backtrack on (as evidenced by his excellent anti-war speech in 2002). That’s not to say he won’t change his mind about stuff, but I think he knows how to play the long-game and isn’t shifting back and forth based upon day-to-day variations. And that’s not only smarter politics, but it’s the way everyone should be. Flip-flopping isn’t just a problem in that we can’t trust these guys to do what they say; it’s indicitive of flawed reasoning. We need people who can see the big picture; not just the daily squabble.

  • Imagine you are an interrogator. You have a detainee who surely knows something important., but you don’t know what or how much. Your training taught you many techniques and limitations. Water torture was a taboo. But your commander uses subtle language like “Do what you need to do” or “It’s not illegal unless they say so.” Meanwhile, the Attorney General won’t say whether a technique is legal or not (“it would feel like torture if they did it to me”). Congress is divided and elections are just around the corner. What an incredibly unfair position to put these people in.

  • Danp has a good point. The ban on torture wouldn’t work if the president, vice-president, attorney general, secretary of defense, director of national intelligence, CIA director, and everyone else in the chain of command believe that torture is a good thing and that the law is just an inconvenient obstacle t be ignored.

    My country will continue to torture until its top leadership is replaced with people who retain some trace of humanity in their souls.

  • You have to give the man points for consistency. It’s this kind of lack of character and integrity that was why the Navy planned to give him the boot 42 years ago, had he not had the good fortune to save his career and reputation by getting shot down.

  • When I read about Sen. McCain’s vote against the intelligence authorization bill, the creepy, half-deranged voice of Zell Miller went through my mind. He was saying, “And on February 13th, Senator McCain delivered an early valentine to the terrorists when he voted against a bill that would provide money to our intelligence operations, money to the people who are listening in on terrorists phone calls, trying to keep our children safe. Senator McCain apparently doesn’t want us to collect information on terrorists, he doesn’t want to keep our children safe. If he did, he wouldn’t have voted no for the funding package.” But I doubt we’ll hear Miller or anyone else from the GOP complain about how McCain voted against funding intelligence work against the terrorists….

  • This is NOT flip-flopping. You idiots seem to be eager to brand him a flip flopper. McCain has said, and always said, he is against water boarding. He says it in his speech before his vote. This bill seeks to enforce a military field manual to a non-military agency, the CIA. McCain stressed in his Senate speech on the floor that he opposes water boarding, but wants the CIA to not be tied to the field manual. He also emphasized that the CIA is not allowed to torture either. Wake up, not every vote is as simple as you wacko’s hope to make them and exploit for your own political benefit.

  • This type of thing is why I continue to insist McCain is not the threat some of you make him out to be. He can’t win without both the Republican base — all of it, religious kooks, no-taxers, neocons, and Bush fanatics — and a large number of independents to stem the perceptible pro-Democratic tide. But Bush is so hated that everytime he moves in one direction or the other, he loses votes rather than gaining them. Either he confirms, to Conservatives, that he’s ‘not one of us’ or he turns off independents with votes like this and his 100 years of Iraq statement.

  • McCain stressed in his Senate speech on the floor that he opposes water boarding, but wants the CIA to not be tied to the field manual. He also emphasized that the CIA is not allowed to torture either.

    Ok, David. Could you please explain to us which steps the fine Senator is taking to ensure that the CIA is not torturing people?

    (Cue Crickets)

    This wouldn’t be an issue if we were talking about hypotheticals. But the CIA DOES torture people, and if McCain opposes this bill, yet doesn’t want torture, it’s sort of incumbent upon him to develop a viable alternative or shut up.

  • A vote for mcCain is a death sentence to each of our own children (100 year war means military DRAFT is in his hidden agenda).
    As a prisoner of war himself, he couldn’t even pretect himself! Why would anyone think one minute that he would think once about protecting our children and our grandchildren for sending them to war?

  • Pingback: New Moveon Ad against McCain, what do you think? - Page 5 - Political Forum - US & World Political Discussion Forums

    • Comments are closed.