McCain on Waterboarding
February 13th, 2008 | by Scott |I guess he changed his mind.
Thankfully, the bill still passed and 51 senators stood up against the barbarity of torture.
And shame on Senators Clinton and Obama for not being there for this vote.
51 Responses to “McCain on Waterboarding”
By jasonk on Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
So, he used to be for waterboarding, and now he is against it? I thought he had always been against torture, at least ever since the 1960s.
I like him. I hope he wins.
That’s it. Clinton and Obama missed the vote, so I will NOT be voting for them :>)
By Phil Wilson on Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
Seriously, wtf, people? McCain? Obama? Clinton?
By R-Liz on Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
Wow. I can’t believe he voted against the measure to ban waterboarding. Did I read that right? I was with jasonk, thinking McCain was universally now against torture. I always hear him say he is (which made him stand-out in the Republican crowd to me), but then to vote this way? It just doesn’t make any sense. I don’t like that Clinton and Obama missed this vote, but McCain voting against it may be worse, in my opinion.
By Jonathan on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
From the LA Times (link):
sounds like he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too
By Robin on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Yes, thankfully the bill passed since the enemy we are fighting against doesn’t use waterboarding - they prefer to cut off our soldier’s heads.
By Jonathan on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
You have heard it said, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you…Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” But I say unto you, do unto others as they have done to you. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If your enemy is eager to murder and torture and violate human rights in the same of its religion, do the same to them. Verily I say unto thee, your responsibility to behave morally and humanely does not apply in such a situation. And fear not, the credibility of the faith that you wear on your sleeve will in no way be tainted by your moral lapses and barbarism, nor will your criticisms of the enemy have lost any standing.
By Jonathan on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
McCain in 2005 (link):
By Justin on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
I know a Republican candidate who is against torture AND wants to get rid of the CIA….
By Phil Wilson on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Isn’t he the one getting 5% of the vote?
By Scott on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Yes, McCain did a politically expedient flip-flop. To me this effectively ends any discussion that he might be a moderate choice. He is for status quo, even for something as morally reprehensible as torture.
His vote is indefensible. And I’m seriously disappointed that Obama and Clinton couldn’t be there to vote as well. If it wasn’t for a handful of Republicans who voted for the ban it wouldn’t of passed.
By Scott on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
And yes, McCain’s flip-flop is worse than the no shows. He has spent a lot of political capital being a voice against torture. That was one area I appreciated his willingness to be a maverick on.
Alas, no more. A vote for McCain is a vote for a Bush third term.
I’ll vote for Bloomberg or Paul as a third party candidate before I would John McCain.
By len on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Do we hold Obama and Clinton to the same standards since they were not there (not couldn’t be there) to vote on waterboarding and they voted against outlawing partial-birth abortions, most definitely a violent and brutal act? Does the non-violence teaching of Jesus apply to all candidates and issues?
I don’t say this to be confrontational, I say it to simply point out that all of the major candidates have huge holes in their approach to non-violence.
By Jonathan on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
len,
I think you’ve raised an astute parallel between partial birth abortion votes and this torture vote. I think in both cases the argument they would make is that they voted against banning a practice disapprove out of fear that the ban would lead down a slippery slope or have unintended consequences or unwisely tie the hand of the professionals. I don’t think it is really defensible in either case.
By Jonathan on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Scott,
I haven’t read too much about this yet, but it sounds a little more nuanced than a flip-flop…that he’s still thinks it is torture but also didn’t think he should vote for this bill.
But, I agree about not voting for him…I started out thinking I might vote for him…but the momentum is steadily building to eliminate that possibility.
By Scott on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Len, the non-violence teaching of Jesus does apply and those are troubling votes to say the least. I know that part of Obama’s justification for his vote was there was no stipulation for the event of the mother’s life being in danger.
My struggle with this particular vote is that it is such a stark about face on what he has said for the past several years on the subject of torture.
By Scott on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Jonathan, the nuance being that this he doesn’t want to limit CIA interrogation techniques as opposed to Armed Services?
I fail to see much difference.
By len on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Playing devil’s advocate: “I didn’t vote to outlaw waterboarding because there was no allowance for the lives of US citizens who might be saved by using this technique.”
By Scott on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
And, again, that’s a reversal.
By len on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
I was simply making a hypothetical statement about waterboarding based on the rationale for allowing partial birth abortion. My personal feeling is that Obama didn’t vote against the ban because he didn’t want to upset his base. And my personal feeling on McCain is that this is an amazing flip-flop, especially when the military leaders were OK with the bill.
By Jonathan on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
I’m just saying that I haven’t had time to read anything other than that one paragraph that I pulled out of the LA Times about McCain’s motivation. This may be a bald-faced flip-flop, but experience tells me that people often simplify and ignore more nuance than they should when making flip-flop accusations…so I’d like to see a fuller explanation from McCain first. Maybe there is not fuller explanation or maybe there is and it doesn’t help…I’m just admitting that I haven’t bothered to look for it yet.
But I also share len’s suspicion that this and the partial birth abortion vote are mostly political decisions intended to appeal to or not upset a certain base with a vote that they consider to be mostly symbolic.
By Scott on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
I’m a full believer in nuance and I’ve never been one to make a flip-flop accusation lightly. And you are right the vote is largely symbolic when it is heading toward a Bush veto.
But I believe the nuance has a whole lot to do with shoring up the more conservative end of the party than it does any problems with the whole of the bill. And look: he scored a Romney endorsement. Great timing.
By Belinda on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
The bill passed, but Bush (in all his wisdom) plans to veto it.
By Jonathan on Feb 16, 2008 | Reply
A Washington Post article has a little more about McCain’s rationalization: link
Civil liberties and human rights advocates have a different explanation:
By Robin on Feb 17, 2008 | Reply
This is part of a forwarded email I received and is quoted in part here in response to Jonathan’s bibical quote to me regarding torture:
I’ll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off Nick Berg’s head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
By Jonathan on Feb 17, 2008 | Reply
Robin,
To paraphrase what you’re saying:
Is that an accurate paraphrase?
I reject that thesis. First of all, I don’t think we can be excused for behaving immorally no matter what our enemies do to us. Secondly, I don’t understand why it isn’t plain that if you adopt evil practices in response to an enemy who is evil, there is no one left who is good.
By Justin on Feb 17, 2008 | Reply
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Robin, if you need a secular argument, look to the constitution. It doesn’t say that government grants us the rights in it, but God. If you deny our constitutional rights to ANYONE in the world, and your justification is that they aren’t a citizen so they don’t deserve constitutional rights, you might want to rethink who you think your rights come from.
But the constitutional argument is really moot for me. How can one who claims to be a follower of Christ, the prince of peace, the one who tells us to love our enemies, support torture. I might can see an argument for war, but I draw the line in the sand at subhuman treatment of human beings, human beings that despite what they may have done, are still sinners who are loved by God.
I’m just wondering how you justify your understanding of torture with your faith?
By Scott on Feb 17, 2008 | Reply
I think what we see in this line of reasoning is an “ends justify the means” mentality. Camp talks about this much more eloquently than I can but I believe this occurs whenever there is a conflation of the Kingdom and the nation. When we allow ourselves to believe that kingdom work is best done by the nation-state than whatever works is justifiable. Even if that means subjugating, oppressing and even torturing those who fall outside of the purview of the nation. Hence, the argument raised a couple of months back that supported Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It doesn’t matter how many of THEIR lives are taken because the ultimate good is preserving our own.
It’s a far cry from the teachings of Christ and is more Constantinian in it’s makeup.
By Robin on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Justin - I wonder how you all who vote for democrats justify your faith by electing people who will allow abortion to continue. Far more lives have been lost to abortion than waterboarding, but waterboarding is more important so it seems. Please explain that to me. And don’t give me the it’s a choice crap. Everyone makes a choice when they choose to have sex in the first place.
This country came about because of something called the Revolutionary War. Did anyone study that in school? The freedoms we enjoy did not just drop from heaven on a plate. I suggest watching the movie the Patriot with Mel Gibson. It gives a clear picture of what the cost of freedom truly is.
And yes, Scott, the world is a far cry from the teachings of Christ.
By Jonathan on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Robin,
No one said waterboarding was more important.
When you have some spare time, read these comment threads from Jan 2007 (link) and Jan 2008 (link) where there has been some discussion about how some of us rationalize voting for pro-choice candidates.
By Scott on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
There should be different variants of Godwin’s Law.
Justin, are you voting for Democrats?
Amen, Robin. Whenever the notion of “an eye for an eye” is touted then we have abandoned a major tenet of His teaching.
By Justin on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
I still have never voted for a democrat in my life, and most likely never will.
Robin, I think probably all here are anti abortion. Definitely in the third trimester. But you cannot disagree that there are some issues to deal with, such as the health of the mother, that many pro life folks don’t want to deal with. Also, how many of those babies are going to grow up in absolute poverty post illegalization of abortion? Tons of babies are aborted every year, many to families who can’t afford the kids they have. Does that not bother you? Have you adopted?
By Robin on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
So we justify the killing of children because they will be born into poverty. Nice. How much does a condom cost? How much does an abortion cost? Responsibility for this lies with the individual, not expecting me to adopt a child. Can anyone say abstinance? Birth control? Or just plain no? I guess that would be too much to ask. So let’s get wrapped up in waterboarding it is easier to rally against.
By Justin on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Good grief Robin, you missed the point entirely.
I am pro life, and I agree with the sentiments you expressed. People need to take responsibility for themselves. But what I’m also saying is that there’s a whole dynamic you may be missing. I’m not saying killing children is the answer. But I am saying that Christians need to put their money where their mouth is rather than just try to legislate something out of existance. Cause the truth is, if you criminalize abortion, its not going to stop. People who have grown up in systemic poverty are not all of the sudden going to be responsible. Maybe if we got out of our pews on Sunday morning and decided that we are gonna be the hands and feet of jesus rather than just talking about it, things would change. The government isn’t going to fix it. Welfare won’t, and banning abortion won’t. The only thing that can fix the problems of sin are CHRISTIANS who are willing to step out of their freakin comfort zones and do something about it.That means going where Jesus lived, being uncomfortable, sitting with someone whose got a 40 of busch in a paper bag and not thinking how awful a person he is, but how did he get here and how can I love him like Jesus. That doesn’t happen in mainstream christianity today. We sit in our buildings and pat ourselves on the back for being so righteous cause we don’t drink or smoke or do drugs or have premarital sex, but we do something worse than that. We create systematic injustice through legislation and pat ourselves on the back for it. I am totally of the mindset that government doesn’t need to be the ones that fix all the problems of poverty, but for God’s sake, the church has got to step up and be the hands and feet of Jesus, and stop living like the Pharisees.
By len on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Why do some on the Christian left automatically assume that those who desire anti-abortion legislation are doing nothing on the streets to help the people of this world?
Why do some on the Christian left state that legislation is not the answer to abortion? But then they fight hard for laws banning torture, or providing better access to health care?
Why do some on the Christian left say that abortion is a big problem, and a troubling issue? But they never once mention their favored candidates 100% pro-abortion voting record, even on something as blatant as partial-birth abortion? And when the record is brought up they find a way to justify it?
I’m looking for the candidate who will make abortion laws tougher and adoption laws easier.
By Scott on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Great comment, Justin. Alas, this is an area where the battle lines are so drawn that any type of discussion is pointless.
I grow weary of it. I really do.
I’m not assuming that those who seek to overturn Roe V. Wad are doing nothing. That’s ludicrous. However, we are in a position where the likelihood of Roe V. Wade ever being overturned is slim and none. Republicans had the presidency, both chambers of congress AND the supreme court and could make no major challenges to it. Nor did they really try.
And so, as Justin says, we have to do something. And that involves us building relationships and showing people the benefit of carrying to term, of making the benefit of labor and delivery outweigh the temporary fix of abortion. Or we can make criminals out of people who disagree with us.
There is no one just trying to justify anything but instead they are trying to deal with very complex issues without resorting to sound bites and turning every issue back to the One Big One.
For crying out loud, I’m straining at my civility here. I’m thisclose to banning any abortion discussion on this blog.
By Jonathan on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
From an article by J. Christopher LaTondresse (worth reading, link):
That article quotes the statistic that except for age, the strongest predictors of whether a woman will have an abortion are poverty and ethnicity. I have also heard that pre-natal care is also an important (and also related factor). Based on this you’d think that both left and right could be enthusiastically united to address issues of poverty, racial inequities, and lack of healthcare. Somehow we aren’t. Some of us are arguing that if we were we would be much more effective in reducing abortions than the demagogues are.
By Jonathan on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Len,
If this
is in reference to me, I’m not attempting to justify, but rather to understand. And, as I’ve said here several times, I consider abortion to be one of many important issues to be considered when evaluating candidates. I also point out that GWB does not condemn abortion in the case of rape or incest and that Laura Bush doesn’t want to make abortion illegal (see the Jan 2007 thread for documentation).
By Scott on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
I think demagoguery is a great way to describe it. The problem is, and where my frustration is at a fever pitch, is that we have made this the defining issue that divides us rather than acknowledging its reality and seeking to find ways to mitigate it. As long as an abortion is a couple of hundred bucks and carrying a baby to term is 12,000 to 15,000 the sheer economy of the issue is going to make it a much easier decision for those who are impoverished to seek to terminate. And to say “tough, they shouldn’t have gotten pregnant” is myopic and expresses a level of cruelty that is misguided in this conversation.
By Robin on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
In this day and age there are many ways to prevent pregnancy. It is part of the school ciriculum in this country. We need to empower our children to understand the ramifications of their decisions and actions not just simply give them a convenient way out. Abortion itself is cruel and myopic.
Besides I thought you wanted to terminate this discussion.
By Scott on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, I do. It’s rather pointless.
By Justin on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
You’re right Robin. Problem is, you’re talking about teenagers in the inner city, young teens really, many of whom attend schools that don’t teach proper birth control methods. And thanks to cultural conservatives, its harder than ever to teach good methods of birth control, because we all know that if you tell someone about condoms they are just gonna go have sex, right?
I’m all for educating people about their decisions. My point is purely that criminalizing something isn’t going to make it go away. Not to mention, that we’re dealing with young teens here, and even with responsible parents in their lives, they still make irrational, emotionally driven decisions. I’m sure, since you have children, you can empathize with that.
Which is why I say, instead of focusing all our energy on trying to criminalize in the hopes that it will disappear, we need to be in the lives of those who are most likely to be faced with this decision, and help them to break the cycle of poverty. Forcing them to have children they can’t afford, especially when many of them are still children, will just make the problem worse. Back alley abortions will increase. Like I said, I don’t think abortion should have ever been legal to begin with, but it is, and our goals shouldn’t just be to criminalize the practice, but to figure out the root problem, which, when you really get down to things, is poverty and lack of education.
By greg on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Torture bad!
Abortion bad!
Duke basketball - GOOD!!
By Jonathan on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
losers.
I believe they were recently surpassed by the Vols.
By Robin on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
I find it interesting, Justin, that you seem to think that only impoverished urban young uneducated women have abortions. I suppose that makes it more palatable.
By Jonathan on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Since we’re having such a good time discussing abortion and the Oscars…I find it interesting how controversial it has been to have a couple recent moves (”Juno” and I guess “Knocked Up” which I haven’t seen) portray young women who choose not to abort…especially characterizing the two as unrealistic of the experiences of most young pregnant women. I don’t know the relative numbers, but the fact is that many young women choose not to abort. I don’t understand why this is so uniquely controversial.
By Justin on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Please show me where I said that. Thanks.
By Scott on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Jonathan, you bring up an interesting phenomenon where both sides can claim aspects of those movies. I believe that this is indicative of a desire by much of middle America to have a discussion about the merits of carrying to term divorced from the extremist rhetoric that seeks only to marginalize and condemn. If we are ever to have success reducing the number of abortions in America then that is an important step.
By Jonathan on Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
Here is a link to a report summarizing the demographics of abortion. It is from a progressive but non-partisan organization: link
By greg on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
losers. I believe they were recently surpassed by the Vols.
And whose fault is that? The Democrats!
By jasonk on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
They’re the ones who invented astroturf! And you know they’re on medication…
By len on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
Don’t know where else to put but thought it would be interesting to some who read this. Read today where musician/social activist Bob Geldolf met with President Bush in Africa today. Geldolf praised Bush for doing more to help Africa than any other president. He also criticized the media for not reporting this.