« Home | NY Subway Strike Looms / Cuba Baseball Ban » | Australia Riots » | Global Cooling » | Blame Tookie » | Wild Parrots in the Bronx » | Arnold's Dilemma » | Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree » | Tomato Sauce » | New York Subway Slowdown » | I Hate Christmas! »

Bush Agrees to McCain's Torture Ban

John McCain greeted by President Nixon upon being released from prison after 5 1/2 years confinement.

President Bush has just reached agreement with Senator John McCain on a bill banning torture of detainees in US Custody.

This is an interesting issue, as the Administration's position has been that there has not been any torture, so there was no need for such a bill.

McCain has immense moral authority in this country on this issue. He was a POW held by North Vietnam for 5 1/2 years, at that country's infamous Hanoi Hilton. McCain and his fellow POWs were horribly treated there.

My personal position is that the terrorists in Gitmo and elsewhere don't deserve kind treatment. I believe that they are the worst of the worst, and that they have information that we need if we are to win the war on terror.

But there is a fine line between harsh techniques and torture. McCain wants to be sure that we are on the right side of that line.

This is a terribly close call for me, but I give McCain the benefit of the doubt on this issue. He has an authority on this issue that neither President Bush nor keepers the screamers of right wing radio or blogs can ever possess.

I don't think that torture was ever systemic, and I am told that safeguards are in place to make sure that the false charges are not made against interrogators. They are trying to keep the rest of us alive after all.

BTW, it is hilarious how the right-wing fringe just loathes McCain. Well, you know people by the company they keep, but also by those who are their enemies.

This post may be tweaked tonight, and there will be more on the Senator from Arizona in this space in the following days.

Dang, Phantom. You delink Nickie ... a truly great blog. And you say that people who disagree with McCain "loathe" him. If you had read what I've written, you would know my position on McCain: "He is a great American but a terrible senator." It's about ideas.

Like McCain, you call the Republican base the "right-wing fringe." Also, like McCain, you fail to address the ideas of the imaginary "fringe."

In general, you seem to have a problem with free speech. But, so does McCain. This is not surprising.

Your opinion as I understand it: I wasn't sure about this, but McCain has moral authority, so I'm going with him. Your post claims that McCain's opinion on this issue affecting the safety and security of the entire nation has more merit because of his personal experience. Amazing. In fact, his personal experience is irrelevant to whether his approach will work. But, McCainites are very doctrinaire in their hero worship, I have learned. Don't confuse them with the facts.

Your parrot post was better.


I'm cool with whatever opinions people have, far left to far right. I engage in pretty vigorous debate in a series of blogs, and if its a European or East Coast blog, I am the only one taking the pro-Iraq war position, etc.

So it's not anyone's views that I have issue with.

To be honest, I don't have a beef with Nickie, I just couldn't be less impressed with the quality of some of the discussion that was on that blog.

It was shouting , nothing was being listened to, there was no attempt to respect or persuade. That is not a level of conversation that I'll be party to.

How the hell do I have a problem with free speech? I'm not going to link to all the blogs in the world. I will link to whatever I care to, as can you, or anyone else.

Nickie's cool, he's my Brooklyn buddy. Some of the rest of you can take a long walk off a short pier.

With all due respect, Phantom ...

Your "phantasizing". You tend to label rather than address substance, and in fact you do this repeatedly. You did it throughout the thread with Rhod and me.

Your post here again labels people like me as the "fringe" right. No ... I support Pres. Bush. I like some things. I don't like others. Most Republicans agree with me on most things. How is this fringe?

My site has links to all sorts of opinions, and all are welcome. I have a "blogdaughter" who is a flaming liberal and is turning 1 tomorrow. Come check it out.

Here is my point: You label people like me as "doctrinaire", claim that people are taking "marching orders" from Mitch McConnell, Hannity, etc, when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. We ask you for specifics and provide you with evidence in response. Then you insult us some more.

You write about the commentary at Goomba's place: "It was shouting , nothing was being listened to, there was no attempt to respect or persuade. That is not a level of conversation that I'll be party to." Oh, come on.

Again, you engage in sweeping generalizations. Sure, there is always some shouting, particularly if the discussion is vigorous and free (you will recall that we also took issue with your defense of McCain's assault on free speech). But a lot of the commentary at Nick's is fabulous. And Rhod is superb. He was great with you, in all respects.

Go back and look at your post here. It's more of the same. You like McCain, so you're going with him. This doesn't make sense to me. The issue is too important. If you want to persuade, as you say, then you should consider factual arguments rather than McCain's POW status.

You seem to disappear in the face of the debate, Phantom. Maybe we challenged your notion of being ignorant, doctrinaire myrmidons.

Semper Fidelis

Non Sibi Sed Patriae

I was 65-35 against the legislation but over came I came to -barely- support it. There are arguments to be made for it, incl. US moral authority in the world. Some of the bad actors, like the French and Amnesty International, will always bash the US.

But there are many friends of this country in Europe and elsewhere who are worried about what they have read about Abu Ghraib, etc etc. and this will help us with them.

As we were saying that we were not torturing in the first place as a policy ( which I think was and is true ) , this should not be a big issue.

There will be posted here on various topics, including John McCain. There is a great deal more to say. He's one of the few American politicians worth watching.

i cant say you were nt torturing as a policy did nt the v.p object to mccains bill. Bush has relised he would do to much damage to the u.s if he vetod it .history will be the judge of the torture that has happened to many in the name on the war on terror. torture just makes the emeny have another reason to recruit they say look what they are doing to our brothers ,remember you reap what you sow.


Keep in mind that these sons of bitches did not exactly love us, or you before. Think about 9/11, or events before, long before the public ever knew of Abu Ghraib or Gitmo or any of these places.

National Nitwit has more on President Bush's decision on torture.

National Nitwit - at least 50% truthful, or Bill Gates' money back.


Love your profile

Goodnight Moon --is-- the best book ever written

they have nt loved us since the crusade's but in many countrys muslims are living side by side they are the one's we need to treat as equals then the message that we can all live side by side will filter through and then instead of bombs and death it will be talks .

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link