The McCain Amendment-The Man Who Thinks He Should Rule

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
It's time to use the veto Mr. Bush...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007477

'A Vietnam Moment'
The McCain Amendment would hamstring U.S. interrogators.

Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Bad things happen when a U.S. President has to fight a war while he's down in the polls--just ask the "South" Vietnamese who recall Watergate. And take a look at the current Washington debate over prisoner interrogation, where President Bush has been threatening to veto a spending bill because of a Senate-passed amendment that would hamstring the military and CIA.

Sponsored by John McCain, the measure sounds innocuous. It would designate the Army Field Manual as the last word on Pentagon interrogations and reaffirm existing safeguards against "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment. But the amendment is based on a false premise that prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib had something to do with "confusion" about permitted interrogation techniques. Or as Mr. McCain melodramatically put it on the Senate floor: "We threw out the rules that our soldiers had trained on. . . . And then when things went wrong, we blamed them."

The proposition that the Pentagon threw out any rules is simply false. Regarding Abu Ghraib, no fewer than nine courts-martial were confident enough of the rules to hand out sentences of up to 10 years to soldiers who violated those rules. The same courts martial proved that the abuses had nothing to do with interrogations. As former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who headed last year's independent panel on detention operations put it, Abu Ghraib was the result of sick and sadistic behavior on the "night shift."

If Mr. McCain has any point here, it's that before 9/11 the U.S. had developed little guidance for interrogating prisoners whom the Geneva Conventions designate as "unlawful combatants"--i.e., terrorists, and guerrillas who fight out of uniform. But since 9/11 the Bush Administration has developed such guidance, and the allowable techniques are both specific and legally vetted. Abuses have occurred, and dozens have been punished. Overall, rates of reported detainee abuse by U.S. soldiers today are historically low compared with other conflicts, such as World War II.

The danger is that the McCain Amendment would only solidify what's already been a military overreaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal. In Iraq, that overreaction has meant that terror suspects cannot be aggressively interrogated at all. They cannot be held for more than several weeks after capture without charge. The insurgents know this, and thus know that they have little to fear if they fall into U.S. hands.


Much has been made of the support of Colin Powell and some other retired officers for the McCain Amendment. We've read Mr. Powell's open letter on the subject, and it is substance-free. It contains only an exhortation that Mr. McCain's gesture will somehow "help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib." In short, it's PR.

Far more impressive is the near-unanimous opposition to the McCain effort from commanders currently fighting the war on terror. They understand that the amendment will be interpreted as an unnecessary rebuke, and as a huge disincentive to push detainees hard when seeking information on "ticking bombs."

Or as Senator Pat Roberts explained his opposition in the Washington Post: "I know as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the information we get from interrogating terrorists is some of the most valuable information we get. It saves lives. . . . Passing a law that effectively telegraphs to the entire terrorist world what they can expect if they are caught is not only counterproductive, but could be downright dangerous."

One old Washington hand--who served in the Nixon Cabinet--tells us that the Senate vote on the McCain Amendment was "a Vietnam moment." He fears that the lopsided 90-9 tally will be read by our enemies as a sign of flagging American willingness to act firmly in our own self-defense.

Unfortunately, the White House has contributed to this signal by blinking on its veto threat. Vice President Dick Cheney's office has proposed a compromise that would exempt the CIA from the McCain Amendment. We understand the impulse to preserve at least some flexibility for the Agency interrogators who question the worst of al Qaeda--such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned 9/11.

But this Bush compromise isn't tenable. If U.S. interrogation practices are morally defensible, then they should be justified for all departments under executive branch supervision. And if the White House truly believes the McCain Amendment will damage American ability to obtain actionable intelligence from the enemy, then it ought to say so loudly and clearly and force Congress to take responsibility for its wartime micromanagement. Mr. McCain will then be accountable for the inevitable loss of intelligence-gathering capacity.
[/B]
 
Bullypulpit said:
The amendment in no way "ties the president's hands". It simply pronibits the military from using intelligence gathering techniques which it is already prohibited from using under international treaty and federal law.


If its already prohibited then why make another law.
 
theHawk said:
If its already prohibited then why make another law.

Don't confuse Bully with logic:)

I am surprised anyone can stand McCain. I mean the man is like the preeminent opposer of Free speech in the Senate. That is one of the main reason conservatives dislike him so much.

That and I am tired of him thinking that the fact that he was a POW makes him immune to any criticism of his policies and actions long after Vietnam is over. And I am tired of seeing him admit that he lies while he claims every politician does so and expects us to vote for him for "being honest about it" Bosh. If you want to stop corruption in politics, stop being corrupt.

And while this may be a side issue on the pow thing. Am I the only one who seems to think that its not heroic to be captured? Don't get me wrong I am grateful that men like him were willing to sacrifice and serve. But just putting on the uniform and fighting for one's country doesn't make you heroic. Heroism is something far more and I think it get's cheapened when its applied to even actions such as being captured. Now fighting to 10 to 1 odds to rescue captured troops or staging a prisoner break from within is heroic, but simply being captured? Am I the only one who is seeing this?
 
Avatar4321 said:
Don't confuse Bully with logic:)

I am surprised anyone can stand McCain. I mean the man is like the preeminent opposer of Free speech in the Senate. That is one of the main reason conservatives dislike him so much.

That and I am tired of him thinking that the fact that he was a POW makes him immune to any criticism of his policies and actions long after Vietnam is over. And I am tired of seeing him admit that he lies while he claims every politician does so and expects us to vote for him for "being honest about it" Bosh. If you want to stop corruption in politics, stop being corrupt.

And while this may be a side issue on the pow thing. Am I the only one who seems to think that its not heroic to be captured? Don't get me wrong I am grateful that men like him were willing to sacrifice and serve. But just putting on the uniform and fighting for one's country doesn't make you heroic. Heroism is something far more and I think it get's cheapened when its applied to even actions such as being captured. Now fighting to 10 to 1 odds to rescue captured troops or staging a prisoner break from within is heroic, but simply being captured? Am I the only one who is seeing this?

Excusem moi? Are you talking about the French?

Fighters for freedom are always heroic at least in my book and getting captured is part of the fight. Unless you disobey orders and put yourself right into their hands somehow, getting captured is basically a numbers game, a result of the overall game plan and fight, not something to be ashamed of. It also takes guts to suffer through captivity.
I admire McCain for his service even though I can't stand him as a politician.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Don't confuse Bully with logic:)

I am surprised anyone can stand McCain. I mean the man is like the preeminent opposer of Free speech in the Senate. That is one of the main reason conservatives dislike him so much.

That and I am tired of him thinking that the fact that he was a POW makes him immune to any criticism of his policies and actions long after Vietnam is over. And I am tired of seeing him admit that he lies while he claims every politician does so and expects us to vote for him for "being honest about it" Bosh. If you want to stop corruption in politics, stop being corrupt.

And while this may be a side issue on the pow thing. Am I the only one who seems to think that its not heroic to be captured? Don't get me wrong I am grateful that men like him were willing to sacrifice and serve. But just putting on the uniform and fighting for one's country doesn't make you heroic. Heroism is something far more and I think it get's cheapened when its applied to even actions such as being captured. Now fighting to 10 to 1 odds to rescue captured troops or staging a prisoner break from within is heroic, but simply being captured? Am I the only one who is seeing this?

i think i read some place while he was a pow he basically through the code of conduct out the window for medical treatment or something like that.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
I admire McCain for his service even though I can't stand him as a politician.

I was just going to post that same sentiment. Although I admire McCain's military service and how he conducted himself under unconscionable circumstances as a POW, I don't have that same regard for him as a politician.
 
Avatar4321 said:
And while this may be a side issue on the pow thing. Am I the only one who seems to think that its not heroic to be captured? Don't get me wrong I am grateful that men like him were willing to sacrifice and serve. But just putting on the uniform and fighting for one's country doesn't make you heroic. Heroism is something far more and I think it get's cheapened when its applied to even actions such as being captured. Now fighting to 10 to 1 odds to rescue captured troops or staging a prisoner break from within is heroic, but simply being captured? Am I the only one who is seeing this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
When the North Vietnamese discovered he was the son and grandson of admirals, he was offered a chance to go home, but he refused to break the military code that POWs be released in the order that they are captured.
He was given the option of leaving the prison early... and chose to stay there and let other American POW's go home instead.

Does that count as heroic?
 
Bonnie said:
Interesting find!! I don't think he really knows what side he's on these days.... I used to repsect him :rolleyes:

Me too, the first time he considered running for President, a long time ago. As you said, I believe I do respect his service to the country. I think he bought into his own pr too much though.
 

Forum List

Back
Top