Rick Santorum: John McCain Doesn't Understand Torture

Santorum backtracks on McCain criticism
(...)
He later said he meant no disrespect to the former GOP presidential nominee.
"I disagree with Senator McCain's view that the enhanced interrogation techniques used on a select few high-value terrorist detainees were unsuccessful nor do I believe they amounted to torture," Santorum said in a statement Wednesday. "For anyone to infer my disagreement with Senator McCain's policy position lessens my respect for his service to our country and all he had to endure is outrageous and unfortunate."
(...)
When asked about Santorum's comments, McCain spokesman Brooke Buchanan replied, "Who?"
And when questioned about Santorum's slight backtrack, Buchanan said "Senator McCain appreciates his comments and considers the matter closed."
Click to expand...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/santorum-backtracks-on-mccain-criticism/
 
When asked about Santorum's comments, McCain spokesman Brooke Buchanan replied, "Who?"
Click to expand...

oh-snap.gif
 
Darth Rotor said:
Does it occur to the OP that raising stupid perpetuates it when posted on the internet?

STOP Aiding and Abetting Stupid, ya hear?

Don't make me come down there! :mad:
Click to expand...

It occurs to me that this man is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. I think it's a good idea to have his stupid well known.
 
In fairness, there is some logic to what Santorum said (even though I disagree with it very strongly). He didn't actually say McCain doesn't understand "torture". He is implying that "enhanced interrogation" is not torture. That was pretty much the position of the Bush Administration.

They weren't too concerned that these techniques (especially waterboarding) easily satisfy the legal definition of torture given in the Convention Against Torture and that there is a broad consensus around the world that these techniques do constitute torture.
 
He's talking about breaking people to the point where they cooperate for fear of more of it. He may not have used the word torture, but he sure as hell is using the definition of it.
 
IMST said:
He's talking about breaking people to the point where they cooperate for fear of more of it. He may not have used the word torture, but he sure as hell is using the definition of it.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your position on what constitutes torture, I disagree with you on the logical/rhetorical point. In fact, claiming he meant torture begs the question.

Again, Santorum is using the same argument the Bush Administration did. They deny that the U.S. committed torture, but they don't deny using waterboarding or "harsh interrogation techniques".

I think it's a disingenuous argument in that they are imagining that a very unconventional definition of the word "torture" is the only one.

But that's really what's going on, and Santorum did not in fact claim that McCain doesn't understand torture.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
While I agree with your position on what constitutes torture, I disagree with you on the logical/rhetorical point. In fact, claiming he meant torture begs the question.

Again, Santorum is using the same argument the Bush Administration did. They deny that the U.S. committed torture, but they don't deny using waterboarding or "harsh interrogation techniques".

I think it's a disingenuous argument in that they are imagining that a very unconventional definition of the word "torture" is the only one.

But that's really what's going on, and Santorum did not in fact claim that McCain doesn't understand torture.
Click to expand...

What does torture mean to you other than what Santorum describes? His statement looks to me like describing animals with spines and being shocked when someone reaches the conclusion of vertebrates.
 
IMST said:
What does torture mean to you other than what Santorum describes? His statement looks to me like describing animals with spines and being shocked when someone reaches the conclusion of vertebrates.
Click to expand...

Let me try a new tack:

Santorum believes that "enhanced interrogation" is not torture. (And the Bush Administration agrees with this position.)

You believe that it is. (And I very strongly agree with you.)

This is a difference of opinion. Note, that doesn't mean both are right or that the correct position is somewhere in between the two. I think there's overwhelming evidence and reasons to accept your position and reject Santorum's.

Santorum is wrong to pretend that everyone agrees with him and use the words "enhanced interrogation" as if it doesn't refer to acts of torture.

You are wrong to ignore the fact that Santorum (and others) use this unconventional definition of torture such that "enhanced interrogation" refers to something other than torture.

See sarge's comments. He's even pointed out another example of someone who holds the position that these techniques (in particular waterboarding) do not constitute torture. Again, we can debate that point--and I'm 100% with you on that point.

But it's not intellectually honest to pretend this difference of opinion doesn't exist and that Santorum claimed that McCain doesn't understand torture.

ETA: If you want to understand my position on torture, you can read through threads on that topic in this forum dating back several years. I've always strongly argued that these "harsh techniques" do constitute torture and are immoral and illegal in all cases regardless of the consequences and regardless of any emergency or crisis situation, as per the C.A.T.
 
Last edited:
I'm aware that there's a difference of opinion on this, however I also think that words have accepted meanings. When you describe something that perfectly fits the definition of a word, you shouldn't be surprised that people go ahead and use the word. Remember that in this case, it's not the Bill O'Reilly version of "a dunk in the water" or however he phrased it. Frothy Mix is going to the point of saying that the methods break people's will and claiming that that's what McCain doesn't understand.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
But that's really what's going on, and Santorum did not in fact claim that McCain doesn't understand torture.
Click to expand...

He claimed McCain "doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works."
Source.

McCain made his position clear in his WaPo opinion piece:

Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture
(...)
Much of this debate is a definitional one: whether any or all of these methods constitute torture. I believe some of them do, especially waterboarding, which is a mock execution and thus an exquisite form of torture. As such, they are prohibited by American laws and values, and I oppose them.
(...)
In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear — true or false — if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html
 
IMST said:
I'm aware that there's a difference of opinion on this, however I also think that words have accepted meanings. When you describe something that perfectly fits the definition of a word, you shouldn't be surprised that people go ahead and use the word. Remember that in this case, it's not the Bill O'Reilly version of "a dunk in the water" or however he phrased it. Frothy Mix is going to the point of saying that the methods break people's will and claiming that that's what McCain doesn't understand.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the point I made in my first post. Santorum (and the Bush Administration and others) are wrong to pretend that their unconventional definition of torture is the only one.

But again, you are wrong to ignore that they are indeed using a different definition. I would have no criticism if what you said in this post were how you addressed this. I would be cheering you on. I strongly agree with your position wrt the definition of torture.

My criticism is that you claim Santorum said what he did not. If both sides simply beg the question (and ignore the existence of a difference of opinion), no communication is possible between those sides.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
But it's not intellectually honest to pretend this difference of opinion doesn't exist and that Santorum claimed that McCain doesn't understand torture.
Click to expand...

Boy, you're sure giving that idiot santorum the benefit of the doubt.

Doesn't matter really...he's "put his foot" in it, and no amount of rationalizing will "save" him from being forever known as the dumbest person in congress.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. :)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
...you are wrong to ignore that they are indeed using a different definition.
Click to expand...

Apparently all one needs do to rid themselves of any responsibility for what they say is to "redefine" what words mean.

Are you a politician, Joe?
 
My point remains that he's disqualified himself from the "it's not torture" line by his own statements. Particularly this one:
Frothy Mix said:
I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative.”
Click to expand...
At some point, once you've got feathers, a bill, an aquatic lifestyle, flight, unusual sexual practices, and a non swan or goose quality, it's no longer reasonable to assert you're not a duck.
 
Whiplash said:
What's going on here.. lefties taking up for John McCain?

Oh, that's right, the election has been over for some time. I forgot. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I like John McCain and have for a long time, now when he sold his soul, that was a just a brief period of time.

McCain-Feingold was a historic piece of law,
 
R.A.F. said:
Apparently all one needs do to rid themselves of any responsibility for what they say is to "redefine" what words mean.

Are you a politician, Joe?
Click to expand...

He doesn't seem to be arguing that Santorum is not responsible for what he said - or even that Santorum is correct in defining waterboarding as anything other than torture.

I understood him to say that so long as Santorum does not define waterboarding as torture, Santorum is not saying that McCain doesn't know what torture is.

That's not the same as saying that Santorum didn't shove his foot in his mouth, nor is it the same as saying that waterboarding actually isn't torture.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
In fairness, there is some logic to what Santorum said (even though I disagree with it very strongly). He didn't actually say McCain doesn't understand "torture". He is implying that "enhanced interrogation" is not torture. That was pretty much the position of the Bush Administration.

They weren't too concerned that these techniques (especially waterboarding) easily satisfy the legal definition of torture given in the Convention Against Torture and that there is a broad consensus around the world that these techniques do constitute torture.
Click to expand...

I also disagree with him but his statement can be logical to the extent that someone who was tortured the way that McCain was does not neccesarily understand the theory behind how "enhanced interorogation works".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom