In Focus: The Politics of Torture
Are Democrats using tortured logic to define McCain's vote against the Intelligence Authorization Bill prohibiting torture? Sheryl Longin wonders.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
With nine long months still to go in this endless presidential race, politics itself has become our country’s most effective torture technique. Who among us, faced with the prospect of more debates, more focus groups, more blathering of the no-longer-restricted-to-Sabbath gasbags hasn’t once thought, “please, take my vote. Just make it all stop!”, and “do they have cable in Guantamo? …No? Don’t shut it down, at least not yet. I’d like a room until November 4.”
Yesterday’s Senate vote on the Intelligence Authorization Bill was about a less pervasive form of torture, that which we may or may not inflict upon enemy combatants. With the three leading presidential contenders members of the Senate, in a wartime election year, their votes obviously were/are the subject of heated debate across the net and MSM… errr, one of their votes, anyway. Because Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama didn’t cast any.
Aside from a few right leaning blogs, the silence — on their abstention (although Hillary found time to advise the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. how he should vote) from a key piece of legislation on one of the most significant issues facing our nation — was deafening. Also, sadly predictable, since John McCain’s vote provided the anti-torture crowd with a big fat bulls-eye for their righteous indignation.
As Josh Patashnick writes in TNR’s The Plank, “the Senate voted 51-45 yesterday to ban any government agency from using any interrogation tactic not authorized by the Army Field Manual (including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme cold, etc.). Among the 45 no votes, disappointingly, was John McCain, who reiterated his belief that waterboarding is already illegal but maintained that there might be some other techniques appropriate for CIA use but not authorized by the Field Manual.”
Patashnick was merely disappointed by McCain’s no vote, but perhaps Valentine’s Day contributed to Andrew Sullivan’s heartbreak.
That McCain issued a detailed statement explaining his vote explains nothing to TPR, is no consolation for Sullivan, and no excuse for John Cole, or Outside the Beltway.
For them, McCain’s very vocal and longstanding position against waterboarding counts for nothing. With this vote, he has achieved a double whammy, providing cover for the Bush administration to do whatever it wants, AND appeasing the torture loving conservative base of his party.
If the Straight Talker’s reasoning was too complicated for them, they could have gotten the gist of it from Senate intelligence ranking member Christopher “Kit” Bond who spearheaded the opposition to the part of the bill McCain objected to, the Feinstein provision, which would require the CIA in particular (not just the FBI and military) to follow the Army Field Manual’s interrogation guidelines, thus ending the agency’s alternative interrogation program, which he said is “lawful, invaluable and does not involve torture.” As Chris Strohm over at National Journal’s The Gate wrote, “Requiring the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual would allow terrorists to know what kind of techniques will be used against them, Bond added.
“The reason they are not disclosed is because everything in the Army Field Manual is republished in the al-Qaida manuals for all of the upper tier al-Qaida members to study, and they will be totally ineffective against them,” Bond said.
Honestly, the twisted logic required to view McCain’s no vote as an abdication of his principles makes my head hurt. Hey, isn’t that torture?
| Comment | Digg This |
del.icio.us |
![]() |
![]() |
PJM Home |


Digg This
del.icio.us

PJM Home


8 Comments
1. Jeb:So, it appears that McCain was for prohibiting torture before he was against it.
It’s not so comfortable when the flip flop is on the other foot is it?
Feb 14, 2008 - 1:47 pm 2. Edith L.:Actually McCain position is consistent here. I don’t think you read the column, Jeb.
Feb 14, 2008 - 2:23 pm 3. Joe:Obama did not abstain. He voted for the bill, which means he voted against torture. Is it too much for the author to just read the roll call that is available from two seconds of googling??*
*In fairness, I know the CEO’s wife may not get fact-checked as rigorously as others.
Feb 14, 2008 - 3:15 pm 4. Roger L. Simon:Hello, Joe (whoever you are)
You should know that on Valentine’s Day it is not good form for CEOs or anyone else to fact-check their wives.
Nevertheless, I will call your attention to the website of the US Senate itself, which tells us that on H.R. 2082 (Intelligence Authorization Act) there were four abstainers:
Not Voting - 4
Clinton (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Obama (D-IL)
So my wife was correct. To save you the effort, here’s the link:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00022
Happy Valentine’s Day!
Feb 14, 2008 - 4:55 pm 5. Jeb:I did read the column and McCain’s full rationalization. Kerry’s full statement in the infamous “for it before against it quote” was consistent even without recourse to after the fact rationalizations. (You simply had to read his full statement.) That did not stop it from being a very effective political bludgeon. Both positions were nuanced and easily subject to the interpretation of flip floppery. I think that McCain’s statement is simply cover for making his vote to appeal to the pro-torture base, but I could be wrong. In any case; live by the flip flop, die by the flip flop.
Feb 14, 2008 - 5:22 pm 6. Lem:It’s not law yet. I believe the house needs to act and then the two bills go to conference on and on. maybe thats why nobody is geting exited… yet.
its a bad bill either way. congress should not be in the bussiness of re-writing war manuals.
Feb 15, 2008 - 9:12 am 7. Hotpatch 6:I always thought that the oath of office for presidents, senators and representatives had a part that said ” …to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” the object being to protect US citizens. In the grand scheme of things, is protecting hundreds, or thousands, of US citizens from harm less important than the momentary discomfort of waterboarding a known terrorsit NON-CITIZEN who wants us dead? Hey, If you hold him down, I’ll pour the water!!
Feb 15, 2008 - 9:19 am 8. Dryfuss:During WWII, all important info was coded, why not the field manuel for prisoner treatment. if tactics are changed and coded, would this not be a possible preventive measure or our we so open visually that we keep nothing under rapes regarding Army stratagies ?
Feb 15, 2008 - 1:03 pmLast evening McCain stated on Larry King, what
Sheryl wrote in detail, regarding his attitude. We are still in a quandry regarding the other two.