Wed 30 Jan 2008
Will Giuliani voters follow him to the McCain camp?
Posted by Sonoran Alliance under Campaigns & Elections[11] Comments
Two of Rudy’s strengths were his stand on the threat of Islamic extremism and his executive experience. At first glance it seems like McCain is a good fit with Rudy on the terror threat but did Rudy want to close Guantanamo and ban waterboarding? McCain wants to do both, sending the terrorist in Guantanamo to Kansas. Does he also assign an ACLU lawyer to each one of them? McCain has been very strong on the war in Iraq but his views on Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation seem at odds with Giuliani’s strengths.
Rudy’s other strong point was his executive experience in cleaning up New York City. McCain has no similar record running such a large organization, public or private. Will voters attracted to America’s Mayor go for a 25-year member of congress? We’ll have a much better idea on February 6th but my guess is that not all of them will go for McCain.
What was done to McCain while he was held prison in Viet Nam was sadistic and probably of very little intelligence value to his captors. Waterboarding has been documented as valuable in saving lives when used against high value terrorists. Yes, terrorists fighting out of uniform in a battle where innocent civilians are targeted. Does a president McCain really want to extend Geneva Convention protection to terrorists?
While on the topic of waterboarding I have a question. If it is so brutal why do people let themselves be subjected to it all the time and post the videos on YouTube?
Waterboarding demonstration on MSNBC
Longer version of the MSNBV video
Public demonstration of waterboarding in DC
CodePink does a public waterboarding for Feinstein
Public demonstration at ACLU
Public demonstration at Berkeley
Redneck waterboarding
Update: Michell Malkin covers the endorsement.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I was a Rudy supporter, but I’ve decided to vote for Romney on Tuesday. I’m certainly not enthused about Romney (Fred was my close #2 choice), but I don’t think he will be as antagonistic to conservatives as Sen. McCain.
Whatever the case, it feels like 1996 all over again. (Don’t blame me; I voted for Forbes!)
January 30th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Your article is really about McCain’s stand on torture and Geneva Convention protections. I don’t support McCain’s views on torture and Geneva Convention protections for terrorists. On the other hand, I have never been awarded the POW medal either. How about you?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
McCain does know a little more about torture than the rest of us. In fact, he could be considered an expert.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
James I have never received a POW medal. In fact I have never served in the armed forces. I still think I have a right to discuss if we want a president more concerned with “anti-Americanism” than the safety of the citizenry. That almost sounds like Kerry’s “international test.” Even though McCain is a war hero it is still a valid point to examine when someone is running for president.
Joe I would never question the senator’s authority on that issue.
I am questioning a technique that several people are willing to have performed on them. Did you view all the videos we linked to? The redneck one is just some guy in his driveway. He obviously did not like it but was perfectly willing to let his friends waterboard him.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I watched a few of the videos, all a demonstration for a purpose. The demo with the current reporter who was a trained military member was very disturbing. The group in a park was clearly for the purpose of inciting curiosity to their cause and sympathy for the same. I know I would panic and be in fear of my life. Is it as painful or damaging as a beating, what kind of pain?
I don’t know where I am on this one. When done correctly and with the emphasis of a trained military interrogator versus a passionate political demonstrator, it could easily be tortuous.
My family has had 3 serve in the Iraq war, one a pilot with 4 deployments of his own. If any of them was captured would I consider that inhumane and in violation of the Geneva Convention? My son was in the Air Force, would his training hold up and be enough? Could it be lethal force? If it was used to prevent a bomb in an American school yard or airport, would I care then?
Immediately after 9-11, in a private conversation and probably after a beer or two a very good friend, who is a retired colonel, said we should hunt them down and right before they are executed pour pigs blood on them. Now that would be internationally despised and certainly considered inhumane. The pig blood would banish them to hell according to their beliefs. We do not see it as anything immortally damning but a very dirty and undignified way to go. So, is it OK?
I do not have what it takes to make this call. I must depend on someone who has seen all sides of war and peace. Faced real loss in real circumstances and lived through it. And even then I am not sure that in this day and age there is any good answer.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Please remember that your 3 family members served in uniform and thus the Geneva Convention would apply to them. It should also be applied by the U.S to all who serve in uniform even if they are our enemies. I was only discussing this issue in terms or terrorists who are not serving in the armed forces of a nation and are purposefully targeting civilians. The terrorists certainly did not show much respect for the rule of law when they decapitated Nick Berg on video. Waterboarding is pretty mild compared to that video.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
The issue of the double standard held by the world is a constant source of frustration. Our country is attacked, the beyond cruel treatment of Nick Berg, and publicly issued intent to harm innocent “infidels” is somehow given a mulligan by so many. Yet our actions to defend our country and prevent acts of aggression, or the expression of our religious viewpoint, is beyond tolerable.
I understand the military application of the Geneva Convention. The question is if right is always right and when is it possibly wrong?
I am truly conflicted over this. Is the perception of torture as a technique we use to gain information, regardless of the credentials of the parties involved, enough to influence others to do the same to our captured soldiers? If the radical Islamic sees himself as a warrior for Islam, does the formality of their organization matter in the the world’s view.
I could give a rat’s patootie about the worlds view except when it would offer an inflamed sense of anger toward our fighting men and women.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:16 am
Ann your words are very well constructed. This gets us to the question – do the terrorists hate us just because they hate or is there something we did to cause the hatred, i.e. Blowback.
I am of the opinion that anyone who targets civilians and children is full of hate and does not have or need a reason. If you believe there is something we have done to cause their behavior then Ron Paul is your guy, the Blowback theory.
Anyone who mutilates and defiles a body after killing the person is not rational and would not be influenced by our civility or by our use of waterboarding.
For me if our country has a high value target in our possession and lives can be saved by using a technique against terrorists that snaps them like a dry twig then go for it.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:31 am
If blowback is the cause, then Jefferson started it. So that sort of makes the point of a culture and not a specific cause. Barbary pirates and all.
If, oh boy like this is possible, we had any sense of respect for the right of the people to NOT know every detail, what a different conversation we would be having.
The faulty, but sincere, belief of some that the necessity to micromanage both our government and our military by the people is the only way to evidence free speech in a free society has eroded the function of both.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:59 am
Excellent point. I do not want to know every detail. I want a president when faced with a tough choice goes with the safety and security of his citizens and not the country’s image around the world.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:31 am
Which brings us back to the “tell-all” media. Partisan power plays made by leaking info or the press forcing issues that have no good result, other than the hope of salvaging their position among a dying industry.
Misdirected patriotism.