McCain Again Supports Torture

John McCain voted to uphold Bush’s veto of the latest anti-torture legislation to pass Congress.

McCain also voted against the initial version of this law that would ban waterboarding by U.S. government agents.

McCain also voted for the final version of the Military Comissions Act in September 2006. By giving Bush boundless discretion to define torture, this law effectively guaranteed that the U.S. government would continue torturing.

Has anybody compiled a list of all the times the media has praised McCain for opposing torture, despite his groveling at Bush’s demands for absolute power to punish detainees however he pleases?

  • Stanley Laham

    McCain has made it a habit to talk out of both sides of his mouth and occasionally out of his ass. The man is totally unpredictable. If elected the US will be sailing troubled waters with a schizophrenic captain at the hehlm. That does not bode well. It is doubtful the ship of state would make it to port!

    • Kenneth

      Doubtful in any case barring substantial tax hikes and sharp spending cuts- neither of which are popular platforms.

  • bke123

    Hillary opposes NAFTA, McCain opposes torture. I think politicians need to learn what the word “oppose” actually means.

  • reeferseed

    Defy the pundits, like slimy, scheming, OJ Pal Dershowitless…
    Ob-Gyn Dr. Ron Paul will win enough of the truly uncommitted delegates for a brokered convention, where we devoted patriots will win! Have no fear, our underdog president is here, and we will help to protect and defend our sacred Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic!

    • peace

      What a mad but fantastic dream, from reeferseed above.

    • Holy Jehosophat

      I don’t know what you’re smok’in reeferseed, but I can see the vision…Ron Paul wins the convention in 2008, just like Bobby Kennedy won at the Democratic convention in Chicago in ’68. Dream on!

    • John Lowell

      And to think that there was a day or two here of respite from this kind of lickspitle. And that Ron Paul has defined himself by embracing it here and there! Perhaps if Paul is eviserated by his Democratic opponent in the Fall and these yahoos have no further romantic obsession to pursue – at least none with any kind of correspondence in reality – we might enjoy genuine, long lasting relief from this imbecility. Can we hope?

      • Eugene Costa

        This is a simple issue. According to the US Constitution: (1) all defendants in criminal cases, except impeachment, are considered innocent until proven guilty; (2) cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden.

        In a case like Padilla, an American citizen arrested as a material witness in the United States and later designated as “an illegal combatant” by Bush, not even the penumbra of a military court on foreign soil confuses the issue.

        In effect, therefore the administration is arguing that cruel and unusual punishment, to wit torture and long confinement without habeas corpus, is allowable against those who are presumed innocent, including US citizens.

        The enormity of this claim, and of the supposed legal power of the President to designate citizens as “illegal combatants” on American soil or in US custody, and its actual delivery in Padilla’s case, apparently has not sunk in.

        Is this claim and its delivery in Padilla’s case not sufficient to get Ron Paul, a sitting Congressman and supposed Constitutionalist, calling for immediate impeachment of both Bush and Cheney?

        Pardon me if whatever respect I had for Paul in the past is now translated into present disillusion, and also contempt for the fantasies of his supporters, who actually seem to believe that he has a chance to win the Republican nomination, then the presidential election, and “save” the whole nation from above, if not this time around, in A.D. 2012

        One Paul Craig Roberts is worth the whole lot of this whole deluded, increasingly tiresome crew.

  • James

    McCain reminds me of the Circus “Carney”.

    A multi-faced man whom I would only trust with your money!

  • Pingback: John <strike>McSenile</strike> McCain: Hypocrisy is the new 40()

  • paulite

    McCain is now on a congressional junket (that means he, Lieberman and Graham) to Europe and the Middle East.

    That means he stays in the news on our dime, not his.

    Isn’t this the same McCain who was against using government money for his campaign?

  • Tikhon Gilson

    It’s hard to believe that Sen. McCain really opposes torture, as he presses for the bombing of Iran and has been an active supporter of the Iraq war.

    I’m sure he favors tax cuts and a balanced budget too. If (God forbid) McCain is elected President, based on his nuclear bomb comments, he should be subject to a Congressional mental competency hearing. Impeachment simply assumes too much sanity on his part.

  • JJ

    But on top of being unreliable he will probably choose Cheney as VEEP.

    I would say that the best thing was if the entire nation boycotted the election farce.

  • Chris Baker

    McCain is a sure loser anyway. I noticed recently that he has another big loser working on his campaign. I’m talking about Carly Fiorina–the woman who almost ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground.

  • Fan of Raimondo and Garris

    McCain will not become president because there won’t be an election in November. I’m surprised that more of you are not onto this. The main motivation for something as seemingly crazy as a war against Iran is to set up the ultimate power grab at home. Here’s how it will happen.

    The war against Iran, Syria and Lebanon will cause economic catastrophe (choked off oil supplies) and set off terrorist attacks within the United States. Executive orders are already in place to use such attacks as the excuse for declaring martial law and suspending the constitution.

    What will you do then? Protest? Overthrow the government? No. The vast majority of Americans would see you as a traitor. They are neither smart nor brave. The country is under attack! Your government is already fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Lebanon! How dare you pick such a time to go to war at home! Your government declared martial law to protect us! It is only temporary! As Bush has already explained, changing administrations at such a critical time would provide our enemies with a dangerous window of opportunity. Bush has promised that the elections will be rescheduled as soon as practical and not one day later.

    The only way to seize absolute power and not provoke a rebellion is under cover of a foreign war. Domestic terrorist attacks just make it that much easier.

    • Kenneth

      Fan of Raimondo and Garris: I’ve no doubt that America is an incipient police state. That being said, your prognostications premise an attack on Iran sometime very soon, which from my standpoint looks rather unlikely. What recent incidents make this seem likely to you?

      • Fan of Raimondo and Garris

        Kenneth, I suggest you read the following article on signs that the US may start a war against Iran:

        http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/03/11/6-signs-the-us-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html

        The ones that most tipped me off were the stationing of US Navy ships off the coast of Lebanon and Fallon’s recent resignation. To that list, I will add another: Bush’s trip to the Middle East in January that included a visit to Israel.

        • Kenneth

          Fan of Raimondo and Garris: Thank you for the link. This is indeed frightening. It is also difficult for I, having lived for only eighteen years, to imagine. I understand intellectually that dictatorships can take shape very rapidly, but a comfortable first world existence makes it seem a very remote thing to someone who has never experienced it, such as yours truly. I shall keep an eye on the Bush Administration in coming months; doomed presidencies are arguably the most dangerous.

  • Skulz Fontaine

    Let me see, what was it that Donny Rummy said? Oh yeah, “Henny Penny the sky is falling!” McCainiac for torture and no “new” elections come November. Yup, Amerika done lost it’s freaking mind! No disrespect intended to any or all commentators. But nonetheless, sheesh! Are we really that stressed out?

    • Fan of Raimondo and Garris

      You will see.

      You’d have expressed similar disbelief if I told you seven years ago that the US response to a terrorist attack would be to legalize torture, create secret CIA prisons, spy on Americans without warrants (that actually started seven months before 9/11), declare war on states that had nothing to do with the attack, suspend due process and habeas corpus, and have fraudulent elections (as verified by a GAO report that was dutifully ignored by the mainstream media).

      Oh, yeah. The price of oil in 2002: about $26 a barrel. Now: $109. Mission Accomplished.

  • R. Nelson

    The Democrats offered up the same old offering of tax-and-spend liberals for the presidential nomination. Outside of war, what significant policy difference was there among Edwards/Clinton/Obama/Richardson/Kucinich/Gravel (sorry if I left anyone out)?

    The Republicans actually offered something of a choice with emphases on various policies: from McCain’s Bush redux imbecility to Paul’s constitutionalism to Giuliani’s fascism, with Hunter and the rest scattered throughout. How in heaven’s name, then, did the GOP settle on McCain? Were James Bryce and F.A. Hayek right to insist that in America the worst usually rise to the top?

    Given what we’ve seen the past five years, Skulz, it’s all too believable what the American people might do. Mix in a dirty bomb in New York, $250/bbl. oil, and yet another war in the Mideast, and we could find there’s a fathomless depth the people will sink to.

    • Eugene Costa

      Kucinich’s “policy differences” were and are significant.

      The same old “tax and spend liberals” doesn’t fly.

      For one thing they aren’t any longer, as Clinton was not, if the “tax and spend” means spending on social programs.

      For another thing, between the Republican Theo-Fascists and the Democrat Neo-Fascists the astronomical “tax and spend”, as you call it, is on wars, occupations, empire, and, naturally, little items like faith-based initiatives.

  • subHuman

    American people support torture and TERROR over weaker people trough politicians they elect.

    Dr. Paul is proof of that, his support was in single digits.

  • Eugene Costa

    Paul runs an incompetent campaign, focusing on so-called illegal immigrants in New Hampshire, for example, and his incompetence proves that Americans overwhelmingly support torture and terror?

    Why doesn’t it “prove”, if there were such a thing as proof in this sort of thing, that they are not particularly interested in getting exercised about supposedly illegal immigration?

    Especially with the catastrophe of the war in Iraq going on?

    In fact, if I know my Vermonters and New Hampshiremen, as I once did years ago, even mentioning “illegal” immigration will get them thinking about all the various measures that might be enacted to suppress it, which, from long tradition, they instinctively rebel against.

  • Eugene Costa

    Ah caint hartly waid to pettle the scribt–Texas gynecologist tries to sell watered down “Libertarian” ideas to Hampshiremen with television commercials about “illegal” immigration.

    Eyah, can’t get there from here.

  • Nike

    Good thing for McCain he is running in the United States. The fact is that the American People – every single one of them – KNEW that Bush was running torture chambers BEFORE the American people rewarded The Torturer with a second term in power, back in 2004.
    Does anybody seriously think that these same jokers won’t gleefully vote for McCain because of his support for US torture chambers? Considering the ethical shortcomings of the audience he’s playing to, McCain has no worries.
    God Bless America.

  • docnoss

    To Fan of Raimondo, I agree with you completely. I live in St. Lucia, having left the depraved United States of Israel 10 years ago. Naturally, the St. Lucians (95% of African descent) support Ehud Barak Obama, thinking he will be the answer to the plight of African Americans, and the end of American aggression. For the last year, when discussing politics, I have told the St. Lucian people that, first, Obama would be powerless to effect any meaningful change due to the special interest masters that he would be up against. But, I always emphasize, its a meaningful point to discuss, because there won’t be any elections anyway. I explain the same basic scenario which you presented, adding that George WWIII will likely sign an executive order in which he declares himself President for Life. Let’s see how well that goes down around the world.

  • docnoss

    I meant “meaningless” point to discuss, not “meaningful”

  • Pingback: 4e52d9e0fe7b()

  • Pingback: The Many Reversals of John McCain()

  • Pingback: John "FLIP FLOP" McCain()

  • Pingback: John "FLIP FLOP" McCain - Page 3()

  • Pingback: aparallaxview.com » Blog Archive » A bit Flip, A bit Flop()

  • Pingback: Zev Mo Bloggin’ » Blog Archive » Crooks and Liars » Late Edition’s McCain Flip-Flop Flashback()

  • Pingback: Christian Conservatives Unite Behind McCain()

  • Pingback: John McCain...... - Page 6 - Marijuana Growing()