Sen. McCain has a long rep, since his days as a POW in Vietnam, as a staunch opponent of torture, though there's been a large dollop of public relations covering some acts of political expediency. Some of the latter showed up today, as he voted "no" on a Senate bill that would ban use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques by the CIA, "restricting" them to methods used in the no-doubt-namby-pamby Army Field Manual.

The bill (the anti-torture clause part of a general intelligence authorization package, and apparently the only controversial part of it) passed, 51-45 (joining a House version that passed 222-199), with the GOP confident enough that Bush would veto it that they didn't threaten a filibuster, and several simply declined to vote on it (not wanting to be seen as, well, condoning torture, as it were). Indeed, five Republicans voted "yes," just as two Democrats (or one Dem and one quasi-indepdentent) voted "no."

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.

It's unclear whether he actually opposes the interrogation restrictions, if there's some other aspect of the bill he disagrees with, or if he wanted to avoid breaking with the president (and, thus, his "core" supporters) over the matter. In either case, one would hope it's a bit disappointing to at least a few McCain supporters, and hopefully it will be brought up by his opponent during the fall campaign.

My favorite quote of the article:

But the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.”

Um, isn't "lawful" defined as "what's allowed by law"? If waterboarding been made (even more explicitly) illegal, it's no longer a "lawful" action, by definition. Though, of course, that doesn't seem to matter much to this particular White House when it comes to waving the banner of "national security" and "the war on terror."

(via BD) 

Filed under :: Elections 2008 :: Homeland Security :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G