But John McCain, the slimy little-fuck, whom I called a spineless git for making torture possible, is now making his support for it more obvious.
See, while I was at drill this past week; keeping the world safe for democracy, Bush vetoed a bill, in no small part because it would limit the CIA (and other gov't agencies) to the same rules under which the Army has to operate.
Forget (if you can) that Antonin Scalia thinks torture is a good thing (against the dictates of his faith; though I don't see anyone saying his fondness for saying torture is good disqualfies him for communion, the way Kerry's unwillingness to impose his faith on the rest of of was said to disqualify him, but I digress).
Forget (if you can) that Michael Chertoff, the head of Homland Security thinks "24" is a good show because "Obviously, it's a very well-made and very well-acted show, and very exciting. And the premise of a 24-hour period is a novel and, I think, very intriguing premise. But I thought that there was one element of the shows that at least I found very thought-provoking, and I suspect, from talking to people, others do as well...
I think when people watch the show, it provokes a lot of thinking about what would you do if you were faced with this set of unpalatable alternatives, and what do you do when you make a choice and it turns out to be a mistake because there was something you didn't know. I think that, the lesson there, I think is an important one we need to take to heart. It's very easy in hindsight to go back after a decision and inspect it and examine why the decision should have been taken in the other direction. But when you are in the middle of the event, as the characters in "24" are, with very imperfect information and with very little time to make a decision, and with the consequences very high on a wrong decision, you have to be willing to make a decision recognizing that there is a risk of mistake."
Forget all that. Because, while important, it's piddly-shit.
This administration believes in torture, but what of the next administration?
Clinton and Obama have said theyd'd be against it. Obama's record shows that when faced with questions of institutional misbehavior, he not only wants to stop it, but to make sure it is dealt with structurally.
John McCain, however, ought to be head and shoulders above the two of them. He was actually tortured in Vietnam. He knows what it's like, and he knows how ineffective it is.
But he's supported the administration in making torture possible, and he supported Bush in vetoing this bill.
Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy director for McCain's campaign, denied any inconsistency between the senator's record and his position on the bill.
"It's not about waterboarding and it's not about torture," Scheunemann said.
He said McCain opposed the bill for the same reason he exempted the CIA from his 2005 legislation: his belief that the agency should not be limited to methods spelled out in a public Army manual.
McCain feels "it's a good thing that (the CIA can use) enhanced interrogation techniques that are not revealed in your newspaper," Scheunemann said. He declined to identify methods that McCain believes should remain available to the CIA while being off-limits to military interrogators.
The Army's methods work. Torture, despite the special pleadings and prettily built fairy-tales of apologists, doesn't. As a means of collecting reliable information torture is (quite apart from being immoral, which ought to prevent the conversation from even coming up) innefective, to the point of being useless.
McCain, for whatever reasons, doesn't care.
Jesus asked For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36). McCain is willing to do it, in the hope it will win the votes of the people who, like Scalia and Chertoff, think pointing guns at people's heads, and hooking electrodes to them will get "The Truth".
I turn my back on them, and clap the dust from my sandals.