Funny Rolling Stone article on McCain

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: silverpig
Yeah I read that article earlier this morning. It's a good read and pretty amazing.

Another 'ProfJohn idiot', I see. That's a title of honor, FYI.

?

He's referring to the resident GOP shill ProfJohn, who thinks FOX news is centrist and every other media outlet is liberally biased.

And anyone who doesn't see his logic in that is an 'idiot' !

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
In my opinion McCain gave up on his moral grounds when he decided that it was OK to let America torture suspected terrorists. That's flip-flopping on a far grander scale than the likes of Kerry.

Except he never did anything of the sort?

Did you read the article?

The article mixes apples and oranges. This is the only paragraph on the article from the subject:

"Then there's torture ? the issue most related to McCain's own experience as a POW. In 2005, in a highly public fight, McCain battled the president to stop the torture of enemy combatants, winning a victory to require military personnel to abide by the Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners. But barely a year later, as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign, McCain cut a deal with the White House that allows the Bush administration to imprison detainees indefinitely and to flout the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions against torture."

If you consider waterboarding to be torture, well, waterboarding was done by the CIA, not the military.

Ask general Hayden.

"The US Army and CIA clearly have different missions, different capabilities and therefore different procedures," Hayden wrote in a message sent Saturday to CIA employees. "CIA's program, atightly controlled and carefully administered national option that goes beyond the Army Field Manual, has been a lawful and effective response to the national security demands that terrorism imposes."

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
In my opinion McCain gave up on his moral grounds when he decided that it was OK to let America torture suspected terrorists. That's flip-flopping on a far grander scale than the likes of Kerry.

Except he never did anything of the sort?

Did you read the article?

The article mixes apples and oranges. This is the only paragraph on the article from the subject:

"Then there's torture ? the issue most related to McCain's own experience as a POW. In 2005, in a highly public fight, McCain battled the president to stop the torture of enemy combatants, winning a victory to require military personnel to abide by the Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners. But barely a year later, as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign, McCain cut a deal with the White House that allows the Bush administration to imprison detainees indefinitely and to flout the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions against torture."

If you consider waterboarding to be torture, well, waterboarding was done by the CIA, not the military.

Ask general Hayden.

"The US Army and CIA clearly have different missions, different capabilities and therefore different procedures," Hayden wrote in a message sent Saturday to CIA employees. "CIA's program, atightly controlled and carefully administered national option that goes beyond the Army Field Manual, has been a lawful and effective response to the national security demands that terrorism imposes."

I don't give a fvck which department did the torture, the fact is that he supported the deal with the White House to allow torture to happen, right after he just got done campaigning against it.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Juddog
I don't give a fvck which department did the torture, the fact is that he supported the deal with the White House to allow torture to happen, right after he just got done campaigning against it.

Except that 'deal' wasn't just a ban on waterboarding. It was a ban on many other techniques as well, thanks to the Democrats' prepackaged bullshit. Which is why he voted against it.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
I don't give a fvck which department did the torture, the fact is that he supported the deal with the White House to allow torture to happen, right after he just got done campaigning against it.

Except that 'deal' wasn't just a ban on waterboarding. It was a ban on many other techniques as well, thanks to the Democrats' prepackaged bullshit. Which is why he voted against it.

Right - so he was for it, then against it. Otherwise known as a flip flop.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
I don't give a fvck which department did the torture, the fact is that he supported the deal with the White House to allow torture to happen, right after he just got done campaigning against it.

Except that 'deal' wasn't just a ban on waterboarding. It was a ban on many other techniques as well, thanks to the Democrats' prepackaged bullshit. Which is why he voted against it.

Right - so he was for it, then against it. Otherwise known as a flip flop.

Your argument is like saying the word 'skittles' encompasses 'candy'. He's still opposed to waterboarding, and always was.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
I don't give a fvck which department did the torture, the fact is that he supported the deal with the White House to allow torture to happen, right after he just got done campaigning against it.

Except that 'deal' wasn't just a ban on waterboarding. It was a ban on many other techniques as well, thanks to the Democrats' prepackaged bullshit. Which is why he voted against it.

Right - so he was for it, then against it. Otherwise known as a flip flop.

Your argument is like saying the word 'skittles' encompasses 'candy'. He's still opposed to waterboarding.

Then why did he compromise so that the CIA could use waterboarding, if he's against it?

Answer: His own self interest.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
I don't give a fvck which department did the torture, the fact is that he supported the deal with the White House to allow torture to happen, right after he just got done campaigning against it.

Except that 'deal' wasn't just a ban on waterboarding. It was a ban on many other techniques as well, thanks to the Democrats' prepackaged bullshit. Which is why he voted against it.

Right - so he was for it, then against it. Otherwise known as a flip flop.

Your argument is like saying the word 'skittles' encompasses 'candy'. He's still opposed to waterboarding.

Then why did he compromise so that the CIA could use waterboarding, if he's against it?

I already answered that. Because the Democrats insisted on banning a whole host of other techniques other than waterboarding and put them in the same bill, so they could play the gotcha game. That was the only option McCain was presented.

You can support a bill while opposing a certain part of it.

This was in Nov. 2007:

McCain responded, ?I am astonished that?anyone could believe that [waterboarding] is not torture. It?s in violation of the Geneva Conventions.?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I apologize for too much of a reach with the comment, risking misunderstanding.

I was referring to ProfJohn sayins anyone who listens to Rolling Stone is an idiot.

It was a facetious comment based on my stated opinion that Rolling Stone has been putting out some excellent political reporting.

Ah, makes sense now.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: winnar111
I already answered that. Because the Democrats insisted on banning a whole host of other techniques other than waterboarding and put them in the same bill, so they could play the gotcha game. That was the only option McCain was presented.

You can support a bill while opposing a certain part of it.

This was in Nov. 2007:

McCain responded, ?I am astonished that?anyone could believe that [waterboarding] is not torture. It?s in violation of the Geneva Conventions.?

McCain is a bonafide flip flopper just like Rolling Stone said b/c he supports indefinite imprisonment (yet he's against torture like w.boarding rofl), read this op-ed by conservative George Will.

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."Well.

Flip.flop, I hear the sound of the polls crashing for McCain. Every voter should read this article about McCain before going to the polls.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: winnar111
I already answered that. Because the Democrats insisted on banning a whole host of other techniques other than waterboarding and put them in the same bill, so they could play the gotcha game. That was the only option McCain was presented.

You can support a bill while opposing a certain part of it.

This was in Nov. 2007:

McCain responded, ?I am astonished that?anyone could believe that [waterboarding] is not torture. It?s in violation of the Geneva Conventions.?

McCain is a bonafide flip flopper just like Rolling Stone said b/c he supports indefinite imprisonment (yet he's against torture like w.boarding rofl), read this op-ed by conservative George Will.

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."Well.

Flip.flop, I hear the sound of the polls crashing for McCain. Every voter should read this article about McCain before going to the polls.

What does indefinite imprisonment have to do with waterboarding?

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Give me a break. A legit news source would never start an article about a politician with a line like "All love stories are beautiful at the beginning"

A line like that is the stuff of blogs. Anyone who is looking at Rolling Stone magazine as a good source of political information is a fool.

Yeah... aren't you a huge fan of posting Op-Ed pieces and quoting Kristol this forum?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: winnar111
I already answered that. Because the Democrats insisted on banning a whole host of other techniques other than waterboarding and put them in the same bill, so they could play the gotcha game. That was the only option McCain was presented.

You can support a bill while opposing a certain part of it.

This was in Nov. 2007:

McCain responded, ?I am astonished that?anyone could believe that [waterboarding] is not torture. It?s in violation of the Geneva Conventions.?

McCain is a bonafide flip flopper just like Rolling Stone said b/c he supports indefinite imprisonment (yet he's against torture like w.boarding rofl), read this op-ed by conservative George Will.

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."Well.

Flip.flop, I hear the sound of the polls crashing for McCain. Every voter should read this article about McCain before going to the polls.

What does indefinite imprisonment have to do with waterboarding?

Both are inexcusable treatment of prisoners. No offense, but how does that escape your comprehension? Yes, I read your post that said they're apples/oranges and to that I say: WTF? How much are you getting paid by the GOP to post?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: winnar111
I already answered that. Because the Democrats insisted on banning a whole host of other techniques other than waterboarding and put them in the same bill, so they could play the gotcha game. That was the only option McCain was presented.

You can support a bill while opposing a certain part of it.

This was in Nov. 2007:

McCain responded, ?I am astonished that?anyone could believe that [waterboarding] is not torture. It?s in violation of the Geneva Conventions.?

McCain is a bonafide flip flopper just like Rolling Stone said b/c he supports indefinite imprisonment (yet he's against torture like w.boarding rofl), read this op-ed by conservative George Will.

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."Well.

Flip.flop, I hear the sound of the polls crashing for McCain. Every voter should read this article about McCain before going to the polls.

What does indefinite imprisonment have to do with waterboarding?

Both are inexcusable treatment of prisoners. No offense, but how does that escape your comprehension? Yes, I read your post that said they're apples/oranges and to that I say: WTF? How much are you getting paid by the GOP to post?

Except.....you could waterboard someone without detaining them indefinitely, and you can detain them indefinitely without waterboarding them?

He said he's against torture....you pull out something completely different and cry flip flop.

Shrug.

The Geneva Conventions allow detention until active hostilities end...well, we're still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: winnar111
I already answered that. Because the Democrats insisted on banning a whole host of other techniques other than waterboarding and put them in the same bill, so they could play the gotcha game. That was the only option McCain was presented.

You can support a bill while opposing a certain part of it.

This was in Nov. 2007:

McCain responded, ?I am astonished that?anyone could believe that [waterboarding] is not torture. It?s in violation of the Geneva Conventions.?

McCain is a bonafide flip flopper just like Rolling Stone said b/c he supports indefinite imprisonment (yet he's against torture like w.boarding rofl), read this op-ed by conservative George Will.

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."Well.

Flip.flop, I hear the sound of the polls crashing for McCain. Every voter should read this article about McCain before going to the polls.

What does indefinite imprisonment have to do with waterboarding?

Both are inexcusable treatment of prisoners. No offense, but how does that escape your comprehension? Yes, I read your post that said they're apples/oranges and to that I say: WTF? How much are you getting paid by the GOP to post?

Except.....you could waterboard someone without detaining them indefinitely, and you can detain them indefinitely without waterboarding them?

He said he's against torture....you pull out something completely different and cry flip flop.

Shrug.

The Geneva Conventions allow detention until active hostilities end...well, we're still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bolded above: So you also agree with McCain that habeus should be denied to our detained prisoners, even though the Consitution says it's legal for everyone ("the accused") to possess this right (yes, even non-citizens)?

It's a flip flop on the treatment of prisoners. You can't say you're against waterboarding, and then say you're for taking away a prisoner's rights as specified by our Constitution.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Bolded above: So you also agree with McCain that habeus should be denied to our detained prisoners, even though the Consitution says it's legal for everyone ("the accused") to possess this right (yes, even non-citizens)?

It's a flip flop on the treatment of prisoners. You can't say you're against waterboarding, and then say you're for taking away a prisoner's rights as specified by our Constitution.

Sure you can. Yeah, I agree with him, and no, its still not a flip flop. They're completely different rights. We never allowed WWII Nazi agents into US civilian courts.

The Geneva conventions treat them differently, and our constitution treats them differently.

Do detainees have the right to bear arms, too? Because that's in our constitution.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Bolded above: So you also agree with McCain that habeus should be denied to our detained prisoners, even though the Consitution says it's legal for everyone ("the accused") to possess this right (yes, even non-citizens)?

It's a flip flop on the treatment of prisoners. You can't say you're against waterboarding, and then say you're for taking away a prisoner's rights as specified by our Constitution.

Sure you can. Yeah, I agree with him, and no, its still not a flip flop. They're completely different rights.

The Geneva conventions treat them differently, and our constitution treats them differently.

Do detainees have the right to bear arms, too? Because that's in our constitution.

Nowhere in our constitution does it say that a prisoner (even a non-citizen) can have the right to bear arms, that is absurd. It does say a prisoner (even a non-citizen) has the right to habeus.

And what does Geneva have to do with this? This is clearly about McCain not supporting habeus, something that the Constitution says any prisoner of the US should have and the Supreme Court upheld this summer. How patriotic is going against the Constitution and your own party's Supreme Court ruling?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Bolded above: So you also agree with McCain that habeus should be denied to our detained prisoners, even though the Consitution says it's legal for everyone ("the accused") to possess this right (yes, even non-citizens)?

It's a flip flop on the treatment of prisoners. You can't say you're against waterboarding, and then say you're for taking away a prisoner's rights as specified by our Constitution.

Sure you can. Yeah, I agree with him, and no, its still not a flip flop. They're completely different rights.

The Geneva conventions treat them differently, and our constitution treats them differently.

Do detainees have the right to bear arms, too? Because that's in our constitution.

Nowhere in our constitution does it say that a prisoner (even a non-citizen) can have the right to bear arms, that is absurd. It does say a prisoner (even a non-citizen) has the right to habeus.

And what does Geneva have to do with this? This is clearly about McCain not supporting habeus, something that the Constitution says any prisoner of the US should have and the Supreme Court upheld this summer. How patriotic is going against the Constitution and your own party's Supreme Court ruling?

They did, and do, have limited rights in military tribunals, which we've used from the Revolutionary War onward. That's all they deserve and that's all we have ever given these types of people. Abraham Lincoln engaged in similar actions in the Civil War. Roosevelt did so in World War II.

Of course, this still has nothing to do with torture, and nothing to do with any flip flopping.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Bolded above: So you also agree with McCain that habeus should be denied to our detained prisoners, even though the Consitution says it's legal for everyone ("the accused") to possess this right (yes, even non-citizens)?

It's a flip flop on the treatment of prisoners. You can't say you're against waterboarding, and then say you're for taking away a prisoner's rights as specified by our Constitution.

Sure you can. Yeah, I agree with him, and no, its still not a flip flop. They're completely different rights.

The Geneva conventions treat them differently, and our constitution treats them differently.

Do detainees have the right to bear arms, too? Because that's in our constitution.

Nowhere in our constitution does it say that a prisoner (even a non-citizen) can have the right to bear arms, that is absurd. It does say a prisoner (even a non-citizen) has the right to habeus.

And what does Geneva have to do with this? This is clearly about McCain not supporting habeus, something that the Constitution says any prisoner of the US should have and the Supreme Court upheld this summer. How patriotic is going against the Constitution and your own party's Supreme Court ruling?

They did, and do, have limited rights in military tribunals, which we've used from the Revolutionary War onward. That's all they deserve and that's all we have ever given these types of people. Abraham Lincoln engaged in similar actions in the Civil War. Roosevelt did so in World War II.

Of course, this still has nothing to do with torture, and nothing to do with any flip flopping.

Being denied a right and being held indefinitely is mental torture. Torture is torture. I don't know about Lincoln, but I do know that Roosevelt regretted his decision to detain the Japanese citizens indefinitely. Hard to believe that people on this board like you still support such a heinous act like Roosevelt's, aside from the fact you want to deny habeus to our prisoners.