McCain Looses Mind, and Mine

On Feb. 13th Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would try to advance a revision bill (S.2248) that would prohibit the CIA from using interrogation techniques not authorized by the U.S.Army Field Manual.

"Agreeing on one standard of interrogation will help restore our moral leadership in the world, and certainly that is needed," said Reid. "In the long run, torture does not help the United States. The information isn't reliable, puts our troops at risk and undermines our counterinsurgency efforts."

This echoed the long held opinion of Sen.John McCain, R-Az., who was expected to be one of the few Republicans to cross the aisle and support the provision. Ultimately, McCain followed Senate intelligence ranking member Christopher Bond, R-Mo., who lead the fight against the bill because, "...everything in the Army Field Manual is republished in the al-Qaida manuals for all of the upper tier al-Qaida members to study, and they will be totally ineffective against them," Bond said.

Bond's statement was in direct contradiction to McCain's written statement dated November 4, 2005, which reads, "Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that would (1) establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and (2) prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government."

McCain's statement goes on to say, "Mr. President, to fight terrorism we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently not only offends our values as Americans, but undermines our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms—not helps—us in the war on terror."

McCain's vote against the provision has sparked a flurry of "flip-flopping" outcries, while various media pundits are pressing the campaign branded, " The Double Talk Express." What caused the Senator's apparent reversal and what effects it will have during the Presidential debates remains to be seen.

Army Field Manual: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/

McCain's written Statement: www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/05117-etn-mccain-stat-detain-amdts-auth.pdf

Since 9-11, the US should have had a policy in place to engage in a less painful form of torture on a widespread basis: brainwashing.

The techniques of brainwashing are well known, and the only reason it has not been used in a widespread manner before is because the training tended to decay, and the brainwashed would revert to their previous state of mind. This, however, can now be mitigated with the use of a small microchip, that would painlessly continue to reinforce the brainwashing over many months or years, making it semi-, at least, permanent.

But why brainwashing, and isn’t that abhorrent?

In a normal, military sense, brainwashing is a violation of the rules of war, when used against soldiers or non-combatants.

However, according to the rules of war, and the Geneva Conventions, non-uniform individuals who commit terrorist acts against civilians have no protections. They can be killed on the spot without any repercussions in international law. And this is where brainwashing comes in.

Terrorists are fanatics, many of whom are already brainwashed by their leaders to commit terrorist acts. So in effect, what the US should have been doing is “counter-brainwashing” them by the hundreds.

In essence, returning them to a non-violent state of mind in which they no longer seek to kill innocent civilians, and are in fact, as revolted by that idea as any normal person should be. They would no longer be fanatics, and only want to live normal, peaceful lives.

Now, if we were to choose to do so, we could just as easily brainwash them to turn right around, seek and kill their own terrorist leaders. And while this would also be good, it misses the moral high ground.

That is, “Though we *could* have executed these terrorists, we chose not to do so. Instead, we “convinced” them to return home to their families and to no longer want to kill or destroy.”

Isn’t that the very nature of humanism? To give to others a philosophy of non-violence, which not only preserves the life of innocents, but preserves the life of even those who, because of their burning hate, were even willing to sacrifice their own lives to horribly wound and slaughter others.

So, call it “brainwashing”, but in the final analysis, it would be saving many lives, of both helpless victims and those who would murder them.

How different would have been the course of the war, hundreds or thousands of terrorist fighters returned home no longer interested in savagery and death, filled with lies about how vicious they had been and how many innocents they had maimed, but instead would tell those who asked “that they no longer wanted to hurt and kill, that it achieved nothing, and that those who preach such things are wrong.”

The CIA could have set up an assembly line factory to brainwash, reinforce, microchip and thoroughly test terrorist after terrorist. By now their technique would have be so tested and effective that much of the al-Qaeda recruitment and training capability would be neutralized.

It would harm no one, and help many people lead lives free of fanaticism, violence and hatred. In turn, they could pass this message on to others, undermining those who live to kill and destroy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.