John McCain's Senate Torture Speech
Because I'm in the midst of an awfully stormy day (the power's already gone out once), I'm going to post this as today's article, while I still can.
Below is the full text of John McCain's speech on the Senate floor this week on the subjects of torture and the report Dianne Feinstein's committee just released. McCain's words are important, because they show how this issue should never be considered a partisan one, but instead a moral one. McCain speaks with the courage of his own convictions, and he paid a high price for those convictions.
So, without further ado, here is what former P.O.W. John McCain had to say on torture this week.
-- Chris Weigant
Senator John McCain, Senate floor speech, 12/9/14
Mr. President, I rise in support of the release -- the long-delayed release -- of the Senate Intelligence Committee's summarized, unclassified review of the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose -- to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies -- but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.
I believe the American people have a right -- indeed, a responsibility -- to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.
I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.
The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless.
They must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good; or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.
What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer? Less safe? Or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources and methods, but not the answers to these questions.
By providing them, the Committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future. This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America's security and stature in the world. I thank the Committee for that valuable public service.
I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture, as a reasonable person would define it, especially, but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary; and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the Committee's report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.
I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.
I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from.
I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.
I respect their dedication and appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.
The knowledge of torture's dubious efficacy and my moral objections to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation's uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9.
Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" punishable as war crimes.
There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn't achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure.
Will the report's release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that's possible, perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn't mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows that we water-boarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven't been a secret for a decade.
Terrorists might use the report's re-identification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life's calling for a while now.
What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise, since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure -- torture's ineffectiveness -- because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much.
Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn't have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.
The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can't win this war without such methods. Yes, we can and we will.
But in the end, torture's failure to serve its intended purpose isn't the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn't about our enemies; it's about us. It's about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It's about how we represent ourselves to the world.
We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values, and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea, not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a king, but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves even momentarily.
Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the Committee's report makes clear that acting without conscience isn't necessary, it isn't even helpful, in winning this strange and long war we're fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.
Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others -- even our enemies.
Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation's highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.
Thank you.
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
“Stu, let me say that I think that this report came from a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites.”
“This is not torture. I’ll tell you what is torture. Torture is what we’ve done to the veterans at the VA hospitals. Torture is what we’ve done by having the IRS go after conservative groups.”
- Jerry Boykin, senior Bush Defense Department official and current sanctimonious Family Research Council hypocrite.
Oh, FYI silly libs, food stamps are slavery too.
"I forgot to mention last night that, following World War II, war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."
- Sanctimonious hypocrite John McCain
Senator McCain said,
"Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others -- even our enemies."
On this issue, Senator McCain has more credibility in the tip of his little finger than all of us here, put together, and then some!
But, I wish he would have added to the paragraph above words to express a certain reality that anyone who would engage in the use of torture and thereby violate the laws and constitution of the United States of America would face prosecution for their crime in a court of law.
I agree with Chris and Senator McCain that this issue is a moral one but, it is also a legal one that should come with all attending legal consequences.
Otherwise, what is the point of making such a strong statement as Senator McCain did? And, indeed, what is the point of releasing such a strong report as that released by the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee?
"Senator McCain has more credibility in the tip of his little finger than all of us here, put together, and then some!"
Having been tortured, he speaks with authority, but he's a sanctimonious hypocrite and a liar too. Who knows what his angle is?
". . . would face prosecution for their crime in a court of law."
This would imply that the spooks aren't calling the shots, not to mention the strong possibility that the torture is ongoing and they all know it. That part is redacted and classified.
Well, I did say McCain has more credibility than all of us put together, ON THIS ISSUE ...
There is very little, if anything else, that John McCain has to say these days that I find credible in the very least.
I was implying that ALL who are engaged in carrying out the torture and who are directing that that course of action be taken should be subject to prosecution. I have also said that the penalty for engaging in the use of torture may be mitigated, to a lesser or greater extent, depending on the circumstances involved.
Of course, we can only hope to know what amounts to less than the tip of iceberg with respect to what the CIA and the rest of the intelligence gathering community is doing.
What we do know and what we can say with certainty based on how events have unfolded over the course of the last 13 years or so since 9/11 is that the collection of good intelligence has been far less than optimal, the consequences for which have been devastating to the national security and global reputation of the United States.
With all due respect to Senator McCain..
He is comparing apples and alligators...
Torturing during wartime enemy soldiers in violation of the Geneva Conventions (Apples) is a lot different than torturing terrorists for intel (Alligators)....
Michale
169
"Well, I did say McCain has more credibility than all of us put together, ON THIS ISSUE ...
There is very little, if anything else, that John McCain has to say these days that I find credible in the very least."
Right. We're essentially in agreement. I'm just saying that his lack of credibility on everything else makes me wonder if he'd abuse his credibility on this issue. You asked the right question. Why didn't he call for prosecutions?
"I was implying that ALL who are engaged in carrying out the torture and who are directing that that course of action be taken should be subject to prosecution."
Right and I was implying that people don't usually have themselves prosecuted. I think there's plenty of guilt to go around. There's also an awful lot of lying going on and it's impossible to know if anyone is telling the truth unless that person gets sent to the gulag.
Right and I was implying that people don't usually have themselves prosecuted. I think there's plenty of guilt to go around.
I see your point.
I think there's plenty of guilt to go around.
Only for those who have something to feel guilty about.
Me??
I sleep like a baby each and every night..
Michale
170
I sleep like a baby each and every night..
Well, that's not entirely accurate..
Last week or so my back has been killing me something fierce... Wish my healthcare plan didn't have such an impossibly high deductible... :^/
But, that has nothing to do with my conscience.. I can honestly say that my conscience is completely clear...
Michale
173
Right. We're essentially in agreement. I'm just saying that his lack of credibility on everything else makes me wonder if he'd abuse his credibility on this issue. You asked the right question. Why didn't he call for prosecutions?
Who would you prosecute??
Your Democrat leaders who were fully briefed on and approved the programs??
Just like in the run-up to Iraq War II, your Democrats have as much blood on their hands as you like to claim Republicans have...
Something about a goose and a gander comes to mind..
Michale
176
Charles Krauthammer: A travesty of a report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-torture-report-is-a-travesty/2014/12/11/53fedf80-8168-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html
And, with no spin whatsoever, Charles nails the landing!!!
10.0.....10.0.....10.0.....10.0
Michale
178
Here's a question for ya'all.....
In 2007, the Democrat Congress sent a bill to President Bush outlawing any type of torture and ordered the CIA to adhere to the Army Field Manual to conduct interrogations..
President Bush vetoed it...
If Feinstein was SOOO concerned and SOOO worried about how the US is perceived in the world, why didn't she send that bill to Obama???
That simply proves what I have been saying...
Democrats are great at lip service against torture and enhanced interrogations..
But, behind the scenes they support the actions...
Michale
180
For the record, people..
I just made another donation to CW.COM... Let's everyone go do the same!! :D
A kinder, gentler Michale awaits.... :D
Michale
182
That was a very impressive speech. The blend of facts, opinion, and personal experiences made an incredibly compelling case. I haven't been a fan of McCain's for quite some time, but I absolutely stand with him on this topic, and I greatly admire the moral fortitude he presented with this stance as well as the eloquence with which he presented it.
And, with no spin whatsoever, Charles nails the landing!!!
I've seen less spin in a centrifuge...
It's funny with all the criticism of the torture report from the right no one that I have read has been able to contradict that torture really doesn't work for time sensitive Intel gathering. You know, one of the major reasons it has been pushed on us...
Of course they got intel from the enhanced interrogations. You could serve over a hundred detainees tea and crumpets in a five star hotel for a few years and get "actionable intel" from them. And according to some of the most successful integrators from WWII and beyond, you would likely get more and better intel from the tea and crumpets path than the salt pit route. Even the CIA agrees, or did in the 80's when it published reports and guidelines about the subject.
Some of the criticism from ex-CIA officials is just pathetic. The report specifically calls them out for lying to congress and executive branch and they want us to believe them when they say it did work but nudge, nudge , wink, wink, we can't show you the proof because it's classified? Bullshit. It's all out in the open now, a little more gas on the fire ain't going to do shit. Put up or shut up! Torture is too important an issue to just believe these people without any verifiable facts to work from.
Then there is the 800lb gorilla in the room that no one from the right want's to address. Was the intel from torture worth the absolutely fantastic recruiting tool torture turned out to be for al qaeda? Did they save more lives than they got killed by the huge surge in ranks al qaeda got by using things like torture and abu ghraib to help recruit? Would we even be dealing with ISIS without the extra militants that torture brought in to the region?
If Feinstein was SOOO concerned and SOOO worried about how the US is perceived in the world, why didn't she send that bill to Obama???
Uh...maybe because Obama signed Executive Order 13491 two days after he was sworn in?
That simply proves what I have been saying...
That you don't know what you are talking about? :D
Senator McCain believes torture both an ineffective and immoral interrogation tool. His fellow Hanoi Hilton Inmate Col. Quincy Collins, who also knows torture first hand, feels it is not very effective, but feels no moral qualms about using it based on the "if it saves just one American life" doctrine.
Which makes me wonder:
Has anybody conducted a systematic survey of surviving US POWs concerning their experience based conclusions about the utility/morality of torture? As far as I can determine, no.
Is it OK to contract our torturing out to people like Assad? I don't really see the difference. I assume we're still doing that although probably not to him any longer.
How long will it take the corporate media to bury this story for good? I don't think they'll let this icky stuff ruin christmas for everybody.
Liz,
Point of clarification...
When CIA Director Brennan stated it was "Unknowable", he wasn't referring to whether or not torture info stopped attacks, made capture/kill of terrorists possible and saved lives..
Brennan stated unequivocally that intel gleaned from subjects that were tortured did, in fact, accomplish ALL those things...
Director Brennan was asked if the intel obtained could have been obtained thru other means.
It was THAT that Director Brennan stated was "unknowable"..
Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page...
Michale
183
It's funny with all the criticism of the torture report from the right no one that I have read has been able to contradict that torture really doesn't work for time sensitive Intel gathering.
No one is talking "time sensitive intel gathering" which is why it's senseless to contradict something that no one is talking about..
Uh...maybe because Obama signed Executive Order 13491 two days after he was sworn in?
An executive order can be undone by a future POTUS..
If DiFi was really THAT concerned, she would have immortalized that concern in legislation that only Congress (in theory) could change...
Was the intel from torture worth the absolutely fantastic recruiting tool torture turned out to be for al qaeda?
Who says that it was a "absolutely fantastic recruiting tool"??
Al-Qaeda...
You taking your cue terrorists?? :D
Michale
184
Was the intel from torture worth the absolutely fantastic recruiting tool torture turned out to be for al qaeda?
Such a premise implies that, if we HADN'T tortured scumbag terrorists that Al Qaeda would be at a loss to find out how to motivate recruitment of new terrorists...
I have too much respect for your intellect to even contemplate that you would buy into such utter felgercarp... :D
So, to answer your question...
Since it's obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that AQ would have been able to recruit new terrorists regardless.....
The answer to your question is "YES"...
The intel gleaned was well worth it...
Michale
185
Let's keep things in perspective people..
Out of the tens, if not HUNDREDS of thousands of terrorists that we have killed and captured, we tortured....
THREE
.000000000001% of the scumbags were tortured for a GREAT treasure trove of intel...
Seriously???
You expect we should lose sleep over THAT!!??
Michale
186
Michale,
Point of clarification...
I think you need to revisit Brenners presser ...
He said that useful intel was gained from the interrogation of detainees who, at some point during their interrogation, had been subjected to torture - well, his preferred term is EITs ... whatever) but, that it was, in his opinion, unknowable as to whether that useful intel was gained as a direct result of the EITs.
But, whether or not torture is effective is ENTIRELY beside the point for me. Indeed, the efficacy of torture is not at all relevant to the discussion I want to have.
That you don't know what you are talking about? :D
Says the guy who buys the Democrat report hook, line and sinker..
A report that followed the ROLLING STONES method of investigation...
Don't talk to ANYONE relevant to the issue.. :D
Michale
186
He said that useful intel was gained from the interrogation of detainees who, at some point during their interrogation, had been subjected to torture - well, his preferred term is EITs ... whatever) but, that it was, in his opinion, unknowable as to whether that useful intel was gained as a direct result of the EITs.
You are incorrect..
Brennan said it was UNKNOWABLE if intel could have been obtained by other means..
I would show you the link, but I know how you feel about those. :D
Michale
187 MAN DOWN!!! MAN DOWN!!!
:D
But, whether or not torture is effective is ENTIRELY beside the point for me.
Damn!!! There goes one line of argument! :D
I was actually thinking about that on the way home.. Progressives argue themselves silly that torture is not effective, even though it has been PROVEN to be so...
But the point is that even if they knew for a fact that torture was effective, they STILL would be against it..
So why make the argument?? :D
Indeed, the efficacy of torture is not at all relevant to the discussion I want to have.
You want it to be a morality issue.. I get that...
But it can only be a morality issue if it's a black and white issue..
But it's not.
It's a buttload of shades of gray....
Michale
188
Oh, it's as black and white as it gets, Michale.
Perhaps it is I who should revisit the Brenner presser ... :)
TS,
Has anybody conducted a systematic survey of surviving US POWs concerning their experience based conclusions about the utility/morality of torture? As far as I can determine, no.
It's not relevant to the current discussion..
Terrorists are not under the protection of the Geneva Conventions...
POWs are...
Apples and Alligators...
Michale
189
Has anybody conducted a systematic survey of surviving US POWs concerning their experience based conclusions about the utility/morality of torture? As far as I can determine, no.
Now, you COULD conduct a systematic survey of surviving terrorists concerning their experience-based conclusions about the utility/morality of torture..
And you know what you would get??
The Democrat Report... :D
Michale
190
JFC,
How long will it take the corporate media to bury this story for good? I don't think they'll let this icky stuff ruin christmas for everybody.
This was never going to be anything more than a Democrat Party One Last Kick In The Bush Balls Before They Are Thrown Out Of Office...
Michale
191
Who says that it was a "absolutely fantastic recruiting tool"??
Al-Qaeda...
Actually I was going off opinions of ex military intelligence people who worked at these places, but you are welcome to question their intelligence and experience...
Actually I was going off opinions of ex military intelligence people who worked at these places, but you are welcome to question their intelligence and experience...
If they make questionable, totally un-provable and blatantly agenda-driven statements like that??
Yea, I would question their intelligence and experience..
But, let me see their statements and I'll decide.. :D
Michale
192
Michale,
************* Point of Clarification *************
Just for the record, here is what Director Brennan said the other day after the release of the torture report at his press conference with respect to what was knowable, in his opinion, about the effectiveness of "EITs":
"The detention and interrogation program produced useful intelligence that helped the United States thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives.
"But, let me be clear: We have not concluded that it was the use of EITs within that program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them.
"The cause and effect relationship between the use of EITs and useful information subsequently provided by the detainee is, in my view, unknowable.
"Irrespective of the role that EITs might play in a detainee's provision of useful information, I believe effective non-coercive methods are available to elicit such information - methods that do not have a counterproductive impact on our national security and on our international standing.
"It is for these reasons that I fully support the president's decision to prohibit the use of EITs."
There can be disagreement about what is actually "knowable" or not about the effectiveness of EITs but I just wanted to leave the record here clear about what Director Brennan said about it.
For the sake of clarity - on what can be made very easily unclear - the above extended quote of Director Brennan was with respect to what was unknowable, in his opinion, about the effectiveness of EITs.
There can be disagreement about what is actually "knowable" or not about the effectiveness of EITs but I just wanted to leave the record here clear about what Director Brennan said about it.
Fair enough...
But I am constrained to point out that what he said THEN was diametrically opposite to what he said BEFORE his disagreement with Obama...
Even if one disregards Brennan's words, there is enough empirical evidence that the torture of 3 HVTs produced actionable intel that directly lead to the demise of Obama Bin Laden and also stopped a 9/11 style attack on the US West Coast..
So, the question as to whether torturing 3 mass murderers was "worth it" is adequately answered..
As I pointed out, this particular question is moot because even if you (and those who think as you) were absolutely and unequivocally convinced that torture did work as intended, ya'all would still be against it...
So it seems silly to argue this particular point..
It's like before when someone asked me to provide evidence of a point I was making... I pointed out that, even if such evidence is provided, it won't change anyone's mind, so why bother??
It doesn't make much sense to argue a periphery point if it won't change anyone's mind.. :D
On the other hand...
"TO THE JOURNEY."
-Ensign Harry Kim, STAR TREK Voyager, EndGame
:D
Michale
201