You would think for a person that spent 5 1/2 years as a POW (three of which he spent in solitary confinement), being tortured with nonstop brutal beatings, refusal of medial attention and other technique; he would come to the conclusion that torture is probably a bad thing. If McCain was as strong a POW as he claims that all this torture did not break him, and he did not revile any secret information about his father or the war efforts, then you can conclude that torture doesn’t work from personal experience right?
Here’s his stance on this issue in June 2007 where he says “There’s no excuse for it”, “It’s not in keeping for what America is supposed to be”:
Today, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) establishing one interrogation standard across the government. The bill requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding.
However today, McCain maintains that the Army Field manual needs to allow more latitude for torture techniques to acquire secrets from detainees. [NY Times article on Senate pass of Ban]
Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban [Thinkprogress.org]
For someone who has been so strong against torture and then to flip on this for a political reason (to stand with his party on pro-torture) shows a sharp disregard for human rights as well as a big gash in his integrity to stand by what he personally believes in.
Politics before country, ethics, morals and what is right, is that right McCain? The double-talk express is picking up steam folks! Of course the torture worked against him in Vietnam, so maybe this is really why he’s changing his tune.
UPDATE (3.10.2008) – Ok so this weekend’s 60 Minutes has McCain on for an interview and within this he explicitly states that waterboarding is torture. Is this a case where his public policy is different than his political practice or just a casualty of the political process where politicians vote for bills with pieces that hold policy against their beliefs but sacrifice those for totality of the bill… either way both are wrong. Here’s his whole interview: