McCain Does Not Know Contents of Current CIA Interrogation Program

Thanks for following it up. Would be nice to see some of this reach print.

Interesting story Michael.
It's disconcerting that the rationale for his candidacy is foreign policy and that he has trouble with shia/sunni and seems unclear about which interrogation techniques we use and whether they are legal.

McCain sure does seem to be uninformed on a wide range of issues. You would think a guy running for presidency would have bothered to study these issues, but McCain's answer to questions on a whole host of subjects repeatedly seems to be either that he doesn't know or that he'll wait to learn more once he's president.

Either that or he refuses to answer the question.

He gets cleared at the time of nomination, right?

So is he going to examine the program once he has clearance?

I'd also say he has a need to know right now. Will he request clearance to be briefed on this?

And, of course, it is illegal to classify information about illegal activity.

So he doesn't know what they're doing, but he knows it's not torture?

I am sure Senator McCain's plausable deniability defense is no great solace to those who have been tortured and/or killed by U.S. intelligence agencies during our war against violent Islamic extremists. Where is Senator McCain's "honor"?

And forget a laundry list - how about a list of one: Is waterboarding OK?

his position, danps, is that torture is illegal, and that if the CIA uses torture techniques, they're breaking the law, and the law should be enforced.

Michael's question is a good one. Okay, so what's legal and outside of the manual? He refuses to answer because the only things that are possible are physically abusive.

As noted above, he can only hide behind this for as long as does not get potential presidential classification clearance.

Of course, that doesn't mean he can't lie anyway, as Kennedy did when he discovered through briefings that there was no missile gap.

Maybe McCain is seeing himself as the next "decider". Knowledge of the details is unnecessary since, as president, he would define the reality rather than respond to it?

Thanks for asking Michael.

And on what basis could he possibly trust the Bush Administration on this matter?

Is it because of Bush's comforting hugs?

As a frequent MS critic, I'll throw an atta-boy to MS for asking these questions. Along with memekiller, I think this storyline should reach the print side of your operation.

And hopefully reach print without rewording the context into more McCain pillow fluffing.

McCain's operation is already on record saying they've done the best on BUsh's torture regime they can do, given political realities and all. Perhaps McCain might be asked why he does not approach discussions of torture like Feingold does - that there are lines in the sand that the US should never cross.

People who are on the intelligence committee call it torture, based on the evidence. McCain isn't on the committee, has no idea what they are doing, but claims that they are not torturing anyone. Just a little more straight talk.

No wonder he has no control over his party.

So Senator McCain doesn't know what he voted for re/CIA interrogation and then I read this from the Washington Post.

"Now that he is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, however, McCain is marching straight down the party line. The economic package he has laid out embraces many of the tax policies he once decried: extending Bush's tax cuts he voted against, offering investment tax breaks he once believed would have little economic benefit and granting the long-held wishes of tax lobbyists he has often mocked"
http://tinyurl.com/6mlzwd

I'm not sure what exactly who he is or what he stands for. Does he know?

If Senator McCain truly supported prosecution of those still employing torture, he would also support prosecuting those that committed torture prior to last year. Why does he make this distinction? Why did he vote to immunize all the prior torturers? Why do the prior torturers get a Get Out of Jail Free Card? And why would only current or future torturers be prosecuted? What is it about torture practiced by the Bush administration that justifiably immunizes all torturers whereas current and future torturers deserve to be sanctioned? Why the glaring inconsistency?

Mr. Scherer, in discovering what journalism is all about, should learn the art of the follow-up question. The Military Commissions Act immunized all prior torturers - why did McCain vote for this??

"I can't go through a laundry list."

Oh. OK, then. Thanks.

(Dick.)

Micheal,

There's this thing called a follow-up question, and it goes like this:

Candidate: "I can't go through a laundry list."
Journalist: "Obviously, I wouldn't expect you to commit to a definitive list. Could you give us an example, though?"

So, let's see--McCain opposed holding the CIA accountable to the Army Field Manual's interrogation techniques, which are known, because the CIA interrogation program has other techniques beyond what the Field Manual contains that are presumably not torture and that should not be prohibited.

Except he doesn't have a clue what techniques the CIA interrogation program does or doesn't use or whether they would or wouldn't meet a definition of torture.

How mavericky.

I'm sure the not knowing what the hell he's voting on is "pretty much the opposite" of the full knowledge of what he's voting on that he'd like to have. So, you know, it's OK then.

So, let's see--McCain opposed holding the CIA accountable to the Army Field Manual's interrogation techniques, which are known, because the CIA interrogation program has other techniques beyond what the Field Manual contains that are presumably not torture and that should not be prohibited.

Except he doesn't have a clue what techniques the CIA interrogation program does or doesn't use or whether they would or wouldn't meet a definition of torture.

How mavericky.

I'm sure the not knowing what the hell he's voting on is "pretty much the opposite" of the full knowledge of what he's voting on that he'd like to have. So, you know, it's OK then.

Apologies for the double post.

Here's someone who really knows how to cover McCain. And he likes him.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/25/draft-the-daily-show-on-mccain-the-sweet-talk-express/

Next question for McCain: Will a McCain administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House?

H/T to Will Bunch, who asked Obama the same question. Obama's response:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

Meandering, but a fair enough answer.

I'll add my voice to the others, to say, thanks for following up on this.

One nitpick:
"This answer is interesting because it means that McCain cannot know for certain if the Bush Administration is currently following the letter of the law."

I would say that yes he can know for certain, because the answer is no. Or is that just my biases speaking?

McCain said flatly that he had not been fully briefed on the classified program, which means he does not know the specifics of the techniques now permitted by the CIA and the White House....This answer is interesting because it means that McCain cannot know for certain if the Bush Administration is currently following the letter of the law, which was authored by McCain, requiring the U.S. Government to avoid cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment... What techniques does he believe the CIA could legally employ outside the Army Field Manual?--he declined to answer. "I can't go through a laundry list," he said.

What? He doesn't know what is being practiced currently, and he is writing laws about what's permitted?

How can you address problems by writing a law if you're in the dark about what people are doing?

It's like flying blind, because you know that David Addington and company are just going to weasel their way through the legal interpretation, so that they're doing basically the same thing they were doing before, but doing it in a way that is technically within the law, but does an end-run around the law's intent.

You have to know what they're doing, then you can write laws that address specific abhorrent practices.

To quote Lewis Carroll:

When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less'.

'The question is' said Alice 'Whether you can make a word mean so many different things'.

'The question is', said Humpty Dumpty 'Which is to be master—-that is all'.

Michael, thanks for posting this.

Thanks for posting this, Michael.

Thanks Michael for following up.

As you can see, his comments left a lot to be desired. "I can't go through a laundry list."

How about one? Waterboarding? Prolonged physical positions?

"Don't know" was his answer to your first question.

Now that's moral leadership!

There must be a secret part to the constitution which states that if your name is George Bush not only are you born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you get a free ride through life as well. I've never seen a president break the law so frequently and never pay a cent for the infraction. The Democrats are getting ready to write the criminal another blank check for his illegal war in Iraq.

Why is Bush not obligated to follow the law?

Can Saint McCain explain that to us?

"I explained the complex sequence of events that led McCain, a vocal opponent of President Bush's interrogation program, to side with the president on a recent vote"

Of course! Thats it! A complex sequence of events! No, not a pandering 2 faced politician at all...just a sequence of unforeseen events too complex to detail here. I was expecting your referenced McCain hagiography to begin w/ "You know, a funny thing happened on the way to the Senate...". Instead what I found was this:

"I think McCain just reached a point where he didn't want any more confrontations with the White House. He wanted to win the White House."

Doesn't exactly sound like a complicated event at all MS, sounds like a pol selling out to win the grand prize.

"aww you guys always getting mad
at me for defending john mccain."
-Michael Scherer
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/truthiness_in_action.html#comment-471654

"Multiple Democrats who have been fully briefed on the current CIA program believe the current techniques are illegal under a fair reading of the law."

So, McCain still doesn't answer the two crucial questions that left your earlier story incomplete. He, clearly, wishes to prolong his blissful ignorance. Multiple Democrats, however, appear to be better informed than McCain and are presumably willing to provide their opinions. Why not ask these Democrats and resolve the matter for your readers?

BTW, in the security world there is this phrase, used derisively, for keeping methods of encryption secret. "Security through obscurity." Actually effective techniques don't need to be kept secret.

The only possible reason for secrecy is the use of techniques that don't comply with the law, or international accords. The idea that you have to surprise them with comfy chair or the soft pillow is ridiculous. And, of course, nobody who has these techniques used on them and is released will tell people what happened.

Moreover, it's not as if the 'laundry list' has changed.....

This is not sufficient.

McCain has not been a straight shooter about torture at all. He's hedging and pandering, and now claiming "plausible deniability".

Scherer was strongly defending McCain before on torture. Now it's balanced by mush.

This is not hard.

The ACLU discovered memos, written by FBI agents, clearly show that the US tortured, and everyone knew this back in late 2004/2005. McCain has been pandering on this depending on his political imperatives.

First it was "stick it to Bush" because he was angry when Bush was such a liar during 2000 campaign, but then he pandered to the right wing base to get support from the nutjobs at CPAC.

But in the meantime, we get mindless parsing of non-issues like waffles and "bittergate" about Obama, as we have about every major democratic candidate since 1988.

It's pathetic.

Why not ask these Democrats and resolve the matter for your readers?

Because they cannot answer. McCain isn't cleared for this.

This is ridiculous, of course. All of our institutions assume good faith interest in governance, an assumption that has been violated by every president in some self-serving way. Classification is one tool that has been abused, as with the Pentagon Papers, which Johnson* was proved to have classified for political purposes.

In this administration, classification abuse has been taken to new heights.

The bottom line on all these "complex sequence of events" is that torture was committed and the perpetrators are going to get away with it scot free. Senator's McCain's current position is to let that happen, but to warn (in the same kind of solemn stentorian words he used viv-a-vis the NC Republican Party) that he wouldn't tolerate it again.

This is an utterly terrible result - basically telling potential torturers that they can get away with it too. And Mr. Scherer defends McCain for this...

Posted by Michael Scherer April 25, 2008 12:19:

Last year, McCain told me that if techniques that violate the Geneva Conventions or the international torture convention were still being employed, he would support prosecution of those officials who violated the law.

Michael Scherer:

This is an incredible statement of integrity, if true and applicable to "officials" in the highest offices in the executive branch of our government.

Do you happen to have a link to the exact quote and the question that was being asked of him?

When I asked McCain the second question--What techniques does he believe the CIA could legally employ outside the Army Field Manual?

How did McCain "decline to answer" Michael Sherer?

Didn't his reply state, he said, "adding that all of the techniques would have to follow the Geneva Conventions' prohibition against "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment."

Where's the BEEF Michael???

The beef is clear, bowing to the neo-libs swamprat pressure, 'eh Michael??

Why not ask these Democrats and resolve the matter for your readers?

jayackroyd wrote: Because they cannot answer. McCain isn't cleared for this.

If I didn't miss the bulk of the last but one paragraph in my first reading, MS has now elaborated on the Democrats' opinion. Feinstein's and Feingold's comments show why McCain prefers to remain blissfully ignorant.

"cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment."

Sit David Addington down and I'm sure he could solve that little legal crossword puzzle so his boys could go to town. Addington never saw a ploughshare he couldn't beat into a sword.

"I can't go through a laundry list," he said, adding that all of the techniques would have to follow the Geneva Conventions' prohibition against "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment."

Curiously, Mr. Scherer does not comment on the logical trap McCain stepped into. His argument that following the Army interrogation manual would bar useful interrogation methods falls apart once McCain applies the GC test to the CIA. Nothing that is GC compatible would violate the Army interrogation manual, because the Army manual is GC compliant. But we will wait a long time before Mr. Scherer connects the dots. McCain is simply too popular and important to be exposed as an opportunistic weasel who wants the votes of torture advocates.

HH: Your point is one I agree with but when you get to the connect the dots I think you need a reporter compentent in the subject matter to do that. Michael has shown me he not competent in a whole of issues. But that is not so much a knock on him as is the Times thinking a single reporter can report or even blog on all issues with authority.

From the original article:

A review of the record shows that McCain has neither changed his position on torture nor taken sides with President Bush on the substance of the issue.

Now that Michael Scherer has had time to actually review the record, it seems as if this sentence is not true.

My problem with the "laundry list" quote is that in the free and unbridled access reporters are supposed to have, there should be no trouble ticking off a laundry list. We've been told, repeatedly, that on the the Straight Talk Express, the problem is that reporters run out of questions.

But this makes clear, or clearer as the Bumiller video on McCain's angling for the Kerry VP slot, that the reason they run out of questions is that there is a boatload of questions that McCain refuses to answer.

I'm not even talking about the kinds of questions the NYT was asking about when the Clintons sleep in the same house (although I've heard that may be an interesting question to ask). I'm talking about substantive questions--like what constitutes torture and why McCain let torturers off the hook with the MCA. Why he "compromised" to let past waterboarding be ignored.

How does he feel about the Libby pardon? How does he feel about the president ignoring subpoenas from Congress? The questions are unending. But, in all the time they have in their open access venue, they don't ask these questions.

So Michael, here's the deal. If McCain is really a straight talk express guy, ask him whether he'll go on a recorded conference call with some bloggers. Why not? How can dealing with a few amateurs be tougher than dealing with hardheaded professional journalists?

> Why he "compromised" to let past waterboarding be ignored.

Not only that, they also considered letting the phone companies scoot for complying with illegal wiretapping requests. I'm not sure if they voted for that or not, yet.

In the big picture, though, don't forget: you're talking about a Repub. They don't think for themselves; they do as they're told. So if McCain went totally non-maverick in voting for the MCA, don't hold it against him; he's just doing the expedient thing, if he wants to remain a Repug.

This isn't related to anything on this thread - not directly, anyway - but it struck me as powerful. DirtyDog, you may want to sit down when you read this.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=534556&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=23200150

McCain's straight-talk act is a lie, and Mr. Scherer has proven it for us. A month ago we gave him about a dozen tough questions to ask McCain. Nothing has happened. Both McCain and Scherer are just dishonest people using pursuing career goals by the most expedient means.

Again and again, posters on this blog find it difficult to accept that the Swampland writers are not telling us the truth, even when the evidence is overwhelming. Mr. Scherer has run out of excuses for why he hasn't asked our questions of McCain, so now he pretends the entire episode of soliciting questions from us never happened.

It is important to understand that we live in an era in which dishonesty and professionalism are considered indistinguishable. That is why Mr. Scherer has been assigned to cover Senator McCain: they both view honesty in the same way, as something that must be honored in the abstract but avoided whenever inconvenient.

Glenn Greenwald addressed this issue today:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/27/mccain/index.html