The Crossed Pond

Of any Republicans, I’m most willing to give the benefit of the doubt on torture to McCain, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, I haven’t quite joined with Andrew Sullivan, Rojas, and other anti-torture conservatives in proclaiming “the era of torture is over” given McCain’s nomination. It’s not that I believe McCain is going to authorize torture or further push its legalization. However, to undo the damage caused by this administration requires more than just a rhetorical stance or even just standing still (or firm) on the issue. I requires, at this point, positive action, and it’s on that point I’m not entirely convinced that McCain, for all his noble rhetoric and courageous stances on the issue (and they are indeed noble and courageous), has the political will or even desire to press those battles.

Part of that is in combination with why I think McCain isn’t the preferred candidate on civil liberties. Because he’s going to be a hawk, both in foreign policy and in domestic War on Terror policy, and that means Patriot Act, FISA, and all the thrust (if not all the trappings) of the Bush stance on expanded powers for intelligence, DoD, the Pentagon, and the Presidency. But another part is if anything has given McCain legitimacy with the base, it’s his pro-warness. And picking an explicit fight on interrogation techniques runs very, very afoul of those people. I can very easily imagine McCain drawing a line in the sand were legislation that runs afoul to his stance on torture crosses his desk. But I can’t as easily imagine picking that fight himself as President, or leading a press for institutional reform to roll it back, beyond wagging his finger and personally instructing his own people. Which of course will be good, for as long as McCain is President, but not necessarily a moment beyond.

My own nagging doubts on this matter received some confirmation yesterday.

The Senate voted yesterday to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics used by the CIA, matching a previous House vote and putting Congress on a collision course with the White House over a pivotal national security issue.

In a 51 to 45 vote, the Senate approved an intelligence bill that limits the CIA to using 19 less-aggressive interrogation tactics outlined in a U.S. Army Field Manual. The measure would effectively ban the use of simulated drowning, temperature extremes and other harsh tactics that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. …

Congress banned any military use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2006, which was co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), now the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination.

But McCain sided with the Bush administration yesterday on the waterboarding ban passed by the Senate, saying in a statement that the measure goes too far by applying military standards to intelligence agencies. He also said current laws already forbid waterboarding, and he urged the administration to declare it illegal.

Wait, what?

McCain, mind you, is well on the record stating BOTH that waterboarding is torture, and that we need to limit our interrogation tactics to those outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual. These are both, theoretically, his central stances on torture. Which makes his refusal to vote on a bill that does nothing BUT those two things a bit hard to reconcile. If he can’t get beyond this, what sort of explicit ban on torture WOULD he be able to get behind?

What’s more, his explanation on the vote borders on the ridiculous. Wait, so we ought to ban torture, but NOT among our intelligence agencies? Let me apply a great big “wtf?” to that. So his torture stance only extends to the military itself? That’s a little hard to understand, given torture is sort of a…well, a moral absolute, by McCain’s own reckoning.

His stance also that we can’t inform our enemies of our interrogation techniques is curious as well, because it essentially means we won’t be legally be informing our interrogators either. It’s also worth noting that that stance is basically indistinguishable from that of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. And it also flies in the face of his previous stated stance on the issue, that being…well, exactly what this bill proposed to do, legally codify that the military adhere to its own stated (and stated for 50+ years) standards.

And finally, “urged the administration to declare waterboarding illegal”? As McCain well knows, the administration can’t declare anything illegal—things are legal or not legal based on…well, the law. Legislation. The stuff Congress passes. And since it’s clear that current laws are NOT cutting it, I have no idea on what grounds one would object to setting a clear and consistent legal standard. It’s also a complete smokescreen to “urge the President to declare waterboarding illegal”, when precisely everybody, McCain included, know damn well that it will be a cold day in hell before the President ever does that. Urging the President to do so, at this point, is hollow, meaningless, and even vaguely insulting.

McCain’s position seems to be that current law on torture is enough, and that as President, he will not personally engage in breaking it or instructing other people to break it. That’s all well and good, and on the latter I certainly believe him, but given the amount of precedents being laid down this last decade or so, that’s not really well and good enough, and anybody who feels the issue is an absolute knows it. What’s needed is an ironclad legal and codified reassertment on where the line is. But that’s exactly what McCain is balking at voting for, much less pushing as a matter of legislative agenda. That basically leaves as the last recourse the courts. But it’s unclear to me that the kind of judges the conservative base will demand of him—and which we have no reason to believe he won’t deliver—will offer very good prospects on this.

Of course, the GOP could have given another silent filibuster on this matter, but doing so would have put McCain in an awkward position at an awkward time, so they let it pass, knowing full well that Bush will veto it (and given McCain’s vote, it seems like were it to cross President McCain’s desk, he might also). That’s just kicking the fight down the road, however—probably right to a time when the general election goes into full swing. It will be interested to see how McCain stands on the matter then.

So the question arises: Senator McCain, if you absolutely believe in your stated stance on torture, what actions are you willing to take to back that up?

Because this mealy-mouthed all-talk no-action fence-straddling isn’t very reassuring.

And the question for anti-torture folks regarding Senator McCain is: he’s obviously a great asset rhetorically. But what’s he actually done—or appears likely to do—to codify his rhetoric into American policy?

Because the answer on that one, given his public record of opposing legislative attempts to do exactly that, isn’t at all clear to me at this point.

(for the record, Obama, consistent with his entire public record, voted in favor of the bill, Hillary was a no-show).