McCain vows to add torture ban to all major senate legislation

[chomerics]

Thats a little too idealist for me. You have to sacrifice some freedoms for security, or everything will be destroyed not by our leaders, but by someone like al-Qaeda.

Yes, I can see how people would look at me as an idealist, but I an a realist. I understand the complexities of freedom, and I feel that when you sacrifice the freedoms, you loose more in the future. My entire reasoning for being against torture isn't because of the here and now, but because of the future.

[DjTj]

He's an advocate of uinversal health insurance (obviously funded by the federal government and our tax dollars), he's an opponent of school vouchers, he's in favor of varying forms of affirmative action and quotas, he has consistently voted against gun owner rights. There are others, but that's a good start.

It was Bush that expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, and McCain voted against that.

In 1997, he voted in favor of school vouchers in D.C. When he announced he was running for President in 1999, he said, "Our children deserve the best education we can provide to them, whether that learning takes place in a public, private or parochial school. It’s time to give middle and lower income parents the same right wealthier families have -- to send their child to the school that best meets their needs. It’s time to conduct a nationwide test of school vouchers. It’s time to democratize education."

In 1995, he voted to ban affirmative action hiring with federal funds. In 2002, the ACLU gave him a rating of 0% on civil rights issues.

McCain voted against background checks at gun shows in 1999, and he voted in favor of banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers in 2004. He even voted against the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban in the early 90's.

Where are you getting your information from? Mine comes from this site:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

[chomerics]

Ironic that I see you in a similar light. That you are so far radical LEFT, that everyone that does not agree with you is a right wing neocon.

By the way, what is the "conservative party"? If you mean the Republican party, then I hate to disappoint you that I am not a member. I'm not registered to any party, I'd like to think I have independent ideas not bound by any party.

Thanks for proving my point nelms. There are enough people here who know my views, and they know I am not a left wing nutjob. But seeing as you view my position as such, you have exposed yourself as the right wing fringe. But don't let that stop you from professing your hatred on this board.

[Larry]

There is an internationally accepted definition of what is and what is not a lawful combatant. The Geneva Conventions apply only to lawful combatants. A country that has not accepted these documents obviously does not have to abide by the protections that they provide.

This torture thing is a pretty hot topic around here huh. Remember though that a majority of the people we are talking about do not fall into the accepted definition of "lawful combatant" and are therefor not guaranteed, by that set of documents, the protections many of you are referring to. Mr. McCain certainly was.

The conventions themselves (At least, the portions that have been quoted here) contain definitions. To be authorised, the soldier must be part of a unit which is operating under the authority of a country, they must wear uniforms, and they must be fighting a war.

In Vietnam, the US (for reasons which are political, but which I agree with) chose not to declare war. In fact, the US went to great lengths for some time not to even officially use the word "war".

The North Vietnamese chose to take that fact (no official status of "war") to claim that their enemies weren't "warriors", and therefore Geneva didn't apply to them. They chose to claim, for legal purposes, that even though their army was shooting at our army, that our army wasn't "authorised" to shoot at them.

They decided that it was OK for them to torture (we called it torture, then. Before the government moved the definition.) McCain, simply because they'd decided that if you use a strict definition of a few words, then we could pretend that NV was at war with McCain, but he wasn't at war with NV, so therefore anything goes.

George Bush has decided that it's OK to torture (except we've decided that things like, say, electroshock, pulling out fingernails, cutting off limbs with chainsaws, hypothermia untill unconsciousness, and things like that don't count as "torture", they're just "uncomfortable") the very people we've declared war against, because well, they're not from a country, so we can be at war with them, but they can't be at war with us.

In both cases, a head of state has simply declared that his legal team has come up with an argument (and, since there is no court, an argument is all it takes) that allows them to fight a war, while claiming that the other side isn't fighting a war.

(See, that's one of the advantages of classifying your enemies as criminals. Criminals don't have a right to shoot back at cops. But both Bush and Ho want to have the powers of a President at war, without having to follow the "war rules", either.)

[nelms]

Thanks for proving my point nelms. There are enough people here who know my views, and they know I am not a left wing nutjob. But seeing as you view my position as such, you have exposed yourself as the right wing fringe. But don't let that stop you from professing your hatred on this board.

I think you are giving yourself WAY too much credit. If we took a poll, I'm sure there are dozens on here that would classify you as left wing.

You see, your views align almost exactly with the Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi left wing faction of the Democratic party. I, on the other hand, do not align myself with any party. You sit there and call me a right winger, yet would any right winger be Pro-choice, as I am? Would a true right winger be in favor of legalizing pot and prostitution? I may be hawkish on national defense and national security, but I am far from a right winger as you claim I am.

[Thiebear]

Thanks for proving my point nelms. There are enough people here who know my views, and they know I am not a left wing nutjob. But seeing as you view my position as such, you have exposed yourself as the right wing fringe. But don't let that stop you from professing your hatred on this board.

I'll give Chomerics credit: He's crushed me a couple of times and moved me over a step or two towards his thought... He'll fight till then end on his point of view though...

[Predicto]

He's an advocate of uinversal health insurance (obviously funded by the federal government and our tax dollars), he's an opponent of school vouchers, he's in favor of varying forms of affirmative action and quotas, he has consistently voted against gun owner rights. There are others, but that's a good start.

I am pretty sure that you are incorrect on every single one of these. Not just one of them, but every single one.

[nelms]

I am pretty sure that you are incorrect on every single one of these. Not just one of them, but every single one.

Every single one? :laugh: Geez, do I really have to spend the time finding the links to prove my point. Monday Night Live is on Comcast right now, dang it. Oh well, let me see what I can dig up.

[Thiebear]

Every single one? :laugh: Geez, do I really have to spend the time finding the links to prove my point. Monday Night Live is on Comcast right now, dang it. Oh well, let me see what I can dig up.

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

Here! read it.

He's an advocate of uinversal health insurance (obviously funded by the federal government and our tax dollars),

Rated 25% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)

he's an opponent of school vouchers,

Let states decide if they link vouchers to student testing. (Feb 2000)

Nationwide test of school vouchers. (Sep 1999)

$5B program for 3-year test of school vouchers. (Jul 1999)

Tax-funded vouchers for private schools or charter schools. (Jun 1999)

he's in favor of varying forms of affirmative action and quotas,

Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas. (Jul 1998)

Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

he has consistently voted against gun owner rights.

Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

There are others, but that's a good start.

[Larry]

It was Bush that expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, and McCain voted against that.

In 1997, he voted in favor of school vouchers in D.C. When he announced he was running for President in 1999, he said, "Our children deserve the best education we can provide to them, whether that learning takes place in a public, private or parochial school. It’s time to give middle and lower income parents the same right wealthier families have -- to send their child to the school that best meets their needs. It’s time to conduct a nationwide test of school vouchers. It’s time to democratize education."

In 1995, he voted to ban affirmative action hiring with federal funds. In 2002, the ACLU gave him a rating of 0% on civil rights issues.

McCain voted against background checks at gun shows in 1999, and he voted in favor of banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers in 2004. He even voted against the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban in the early 90's.

Where are you getting your information from? Mine comes from this site:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

You do realise you just destroyed my image of McCain as a moderate with ethics who will lead America to a unified promised land. (I still think he's got ethics, although I've got about as much to support that image as I do to support the "moderate" one.)

Had to go and bring facts to an opinion fight, didn't you?

[Thiebear]

oops sorry DJTJ beat me to it...

[nelms]

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

Here! read it.

Not sure who sponsors this site and how accurate it is, but check out the first blurb on gun control. This the bill McCain sponsored along with Lieberman to further strip gun owner rights.

[nelms]

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

Here! read it.

He's an advocate of uinversal health insurance (obviously funded by the federal government and our tax dollars),

Rated 25% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)

he's an opponent of school vouchers,

Let states decide if they link vouchers to student testing. (Feb 2000)

Nationwide test of school vouchers. (Sep 1999)

$5B program for 3-year test of school vouchers. (Jul 1999)

Tax-funded vouchers for private schools or charter schools. (Jun 1999)

he's in favor of varying forms of affirmative action and quotas,

Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas. (Jul 1998)

Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

he has consistently voted against gun owner rights.

Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

There are others, but that's a good start.

You are picking and choosing his votes.

For Gun Control, why did you leave out these?

* Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)

* Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)

The first one was the McCain-Lieberman bill on gun control, which was opposed by gun owners across the board.

For health care, why did you leave out these?

* Higher taxes on cigarettes. (Jan 2000)

* Expand health insurance to 11 million uninsured children. (Dec 1999)

[Thiebear]

You are picking and choosing his votes. Why did you leave out the McCain-Lieberman bill on gun control?

1. Not going to list the whole site: thats what the LINK is for..

2. I only have to prove your wrong in your generalization.. Not correct on occasion and wrong on occasion: hence the moderate/rogue walking the line republican...

3.

[DjTj]

Not sure who sponsors this site and how accurate it is, but check out the first blurb on gun control. This the bill McCain sponsored along with Lieberman to further strip gun owner rights.

Alright, I'll admit that McCain is moderate on gun issues, but when it has come down to a vote, he has generally sided with the Republican Party. In any case, there's no way any one would call him a "liberal" on gun control.

He supported the NRA position 50% of the time.

The Gun Owners of America gave him a C-.

He supported The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 0% of the time.

He supported The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 14% of the time.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0061103&type=category&category=Gun%20Issues

[nelms]

Alright, I'll admit that McCain is moderate on gun issues, but when it has come down to a vote, he has generally sided with the Republican Party. In any case, there's no way any one would call him a "liberal" on gun control.

He supported the NRA position 50% of the time.

The Gun Owners of America gave him a C-.

He supported The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 0% of the time.

He supported The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 14% of the time.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0061103&type=category&category=Gun%20Issues

You have to remember, according to chom, that I am so far right that anyone to the left of me is a left wing nutjob. So let me rephrase - according to the conversative base in this country, McCain is a liberal.

I'll see if I can dig up the National Journal's conservative/liberal ranking for McCain. From what I recall, he was way down the list of Senators when it came to conservative ranking. The National Journal are the folks that ranked John Kerry the most liberal member of the Senate right before the presidential election. :laugh:

[nelms]

1. Not going to list the whole site: thats what the LINK is for..2. I only have to prove your wrong in your generalization.. Not correct on occasion and wrong on occasion: hence the moderate/rogue walking the line republican...

3.

1. You purposely left out points that were at the top of the list on some of these categories. How can one get a complete picture if you leave out relevant points?

2. If you want to say moderate, fine. He's a liberal to me. Remember, I'm a right wing wacko.

3.

[Larry]

You have to remember, according to chom, that I am so far right that anyone to the left of me is a left wing nutjob. So let me rephrase - according to the conversative base in this country, McCain is a liberal.

Yes, but "the conservative base" is full of whackos. Just ask "the conservative base's" chief fundraiser.

[Thiebear]

1. You purposely left out points that were at the top of the list on some of these categories. How can one get a complete picture if you leave out relevant points?

2. If you want to say moderate, fine. He's a liberal to me. Remember, I'm a right wing wacko.

3.

1. I need your help, broad generalizations don't help. They are too easy to refute and hijacks the thread.

2. Your slightly right of me, in some issue a lot, in others.. your a liberal ..

[Crazyhorse1]

I'm all for a little torture in the right situations.

I agree. Libby will give us Cheney for sure just to keep photes of his slapped naked buttocks from hitting the news stands, and that little soft, fat man, Rove, he'll be shouting "Bush told me to do it!" before we can get his little pink genitals wired.

[Thiebear]

I agree. Libby will give us Cheney for sure just to keep photes of his slapped naked buttocks from hitting the news stands, and that little soft, fat man, Rove, he'll be shouting "Bush told me to do it!" before we can get his little pink genitals wired.

Hmmmmmmmmm, I smell teen spirit.. Watch all of those that scream the loudest as those are the ones with the skeletons in their closet. It's o.k. Crazyhorse, this is 2005 and your outing will be just another notch in the democratic underground belt of: The Dems are more representative......

[Crazyhorse1]

And he has a black love child.

Now, seriously. Name one position on which McCain is "liberal".

Dear Whoever Said McCain Has a Black Love Child

He has an adopted child. Do you have issues with a man adopting a child of another race? Let's see. You want to torture people; hate liberals; think McCain is a liberal, which he is not; think his adopted child is a love child, which it is not; and make statements that make one think you are a racist.

And I should listen to you? Because you are a smart guy?

[nelms]

Dear Whoever Said McCain Has a Black Love Child

He has an adopted child. Do you have issues with a man adopting a child of another race? Let's see. You want to torture people; hate liberals; think McCain is a liberal, which he is not; think his adopted child is a love child, which it is not; and make statements that make one think you are a racist.

And I should listen to you? Because you are a smart guy?

Uhhhhh, if I'm not mistaken, Larry's position is the same as yours. He opposes torture. And his comment about McCain's child was facetitous.

I'm sure Larry can stick up for himself, but before you start calling someone a racist, check your facts first.

[Larry]

Dear Whoever Said McCain Has a Black Love Child

He has an adopted child. Do you have issues with a man adopting a child of another race? Let's see. You want to torture people; hate liberals; think McCain is a liberal, which he is not; think his adopted child is a love child, which it is not; and make statements that make one think you are a racist.

And I should listen to you? Because you are a smart guy?

My point was a response to the "McCain is a flaming liberal" post.

I was pointing out the falacy of judging someone based strictly on what Carl Rove says about him.

By citing a "fact" that everybody here knows is not true.

[Larry]

Uhhhhh, if I'm not mistaken, Larry's position is the same as yours. He opposes torture.

And actually, that's not quite true. I want the President to have the option of doing just about anything.

I want there to be oversight. I want there to be consequences if they think somebody's a terrorist, and they're wrong. I want the person who authorised it to have a name, on a piece of paper, along with his reasons why he thought it was necessary.

I want there to be a requirement that there has to be a "torture warrant", signed by a person who's accountable and (to pick a phrase out of somewhere) "supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I wouldn't be opposed to the penalty for being wrong to potentially involve the death penalty.

What I don't want is for our country to have Men In Black kidnapping people, and shipping them (in "private" jets that use military bases for refueling stops, and to avoid customs) to Egypt, along with a list of things we want the Egyptians to ask them, while the President says "we don't do that".

Now, maybe parts of the accountability don't have to be public. (Parts of it should be, like what the rules are, and how often is it used, and how often are we wrong. But I'll concede that we won't always be able to release the names in a timely manner. Maybe not at all.)