T Nation

Polls Support Torture of Terrorists

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting results in this poll:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/

EXCERPT:

Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

The United States has drawn criticism from human rights groups and many governments, especially in Europe, for its treatment of terror suspects. President Bush and other top officials have said the U.S. does not torture, but some suspects in American custody have alleged they were victims of severe mistreatment.

The polling, in the United States and eight of its closest allies, found that in Canada, Mexico and Germany people are divided on whether torture is ever justified. Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain and Italy.

?I don?t think we should go out and string everybody up by their thumbs until somebody talks. But if there is definitely a good reason to get an answer, we should do whatever it takes,? said Billy Adams, a retiree from Tomball, Texas.

In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way. [/quote]

Awesome, makes me feel great about America (and Britain, and France, and South Korea, yes). Here’s a conservative hawk with a conscience and a brain:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512020294dec02,0,6175078.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Some more parsing of Condi’s words – apparently some in the European press who were doing the initial reporting were hearing what they wanted to hear:

Now We Are Torturing Logic

The Times tackles Condi Rice’s latest pronouncement on torture ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/08/politics/08detain.html?ex=1291698000&en=0d5a6353f6e19856&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss ), and does a much better job than the FT of navigating the maze.

From the FT, as hosted at MSNBC ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10372233/from/RS.3/ ):

[i]Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, on Wednesday signalled a major policy shift by stating explicitly that US personnel were prohibited from using "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment of detainees as she weathered protests in Europe over secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons and alleged torture.

Members of the US Congress, who had pressed for the change, and human rights activists welcomed the statement as a policy U-turn.   [/i]       

But was it a u-turn? Eric Umansky guides us through the hedges ( http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/12/torture_policy__2.html#comment-11922950 ). His gist - US treaty obligations forbid torture by US personnel of US citizens anywhere, and torture by US personnel of non-US citizens in territory under US control.

However, US personnel operating abroad are not obliged to respect the rights of non-US citizens.

So let’s go to her soundbite:

“As a matter of US policy, the US obligations under the CAT, which prohibits cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment ? those obligations extend to US personnel wherever they are,” Ms Rice said in Ukraine.

That could easily mean that we will continue to respect our treaty obligations, which are silent on the issue of restrictions on US personnel while operating abroad.

Let’s see how the pros at the Times handled this:

[i]WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 - Responding to pressure at home and abroad to set clearer standards for the interrogation of terrorist suspects, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the policy of the United States was not to allow its personnel, whether on American or foreign soil, to engage in cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners.[/i]

Sounds like they fell for the spin. But not so fast! Here is the next paragraph:

But her statement did little to clear up widespread confusion about where the administration draws the line or to dispel hints of an internal debate among President Bush’s inner circle on that topic. It was interpreted variously as a subtle but important shift in policy, a restatement of the administration’s long-held position or an artful dodge intended to retain flexibility in dealing with detainees while soothing public opinion in the United States and Europe.

Eventually the Times hops on the merry-go-round:

[i] “As a matter of U.S. policy, the United States obligations under the C.A.T., which prohibits, of course, cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment, those obligations extend to U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States,” she said.

Her wording appeared to be an effort to signal explicitly that the United States considered itself bound by those standards when it came to interrogations of non-Americans by C.I.A. officers operating outside the United States. But it did not directly address another practice that has drawn criticism at home and abroad, that of sending detainees to third countries for interrogation by foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The confusion over the import of her remarks stemmed in part from a distinction often obscured in the debate over the issue. On the one hand, the administration has argued that the United States is not legally bound to apply all the international standards to, for example, C.I.A. officers working in foreign countries. On the other hand, the administration maintains that whatever the law says, its policy is to adhere to the substance of those standards, at least as they are defined by the United States.

The administration has repeatedly said it did not consider the law that implemented the international treaty to apply in a legal sense to the C.I.A. and other nonmilitary personnel interrogating non-Americans abroad. But it has also stated, as the Justice Department put it in a letter to several Democratic senators last spring, that as a matter of policy the United States "wants to be in compliance" with the standards of the convention and was reviewing interrogation techniques to ensure that it was.[/i]

Here is a link to one of the letters in question - the notion that it is Administration policy to apply our treaty obligations to US personnel dealing with aliens abroad is the first topic addressed (and the Times got it right).

So was Ms. Rice breaking new ground, or simply restating existing policy? It depends on who you ask:

[i]Alluding to the administration's previous statements about its policy intentions, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Ms. Rice's statement did not represent any change.

But Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said it was a reversal and a "very welcome change from their previous position, which I believe has cost us dearly in the world and does not reflect our nation's laws or our values."[/i]

I can see where the Admin won’t want to admit it is backing down. On the other hand, as a proper Dem Carl Levin is surely inclined to declare victory and exit.

The WaPo has a bit more, and seems to lean towards a third view - Ms. Rice was restating Administration policy that was previously overlooked. Oh, please:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120700215.html

[i]McClellan's comment appears to be based on a written answer that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales gave in late October to a question posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In answer to Question 158, Gonzales wrote that the administration's policy is to abide by provisions barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment "even if such compliance is not legally required, regardless of whether the detainee in question is held in the United States or overseas."

Those words, buried in the document, passed largely unnoticed and the new policy was never publicly articulated until Rice spoke in Kiev on Wednesday.[/i]

Well, gosh, since we have these letters to Senators, and since the Times is telling us about letters from last spring, where has the WaPo been?

Of course, there is a second related question - is Ms. Rice talking exclusively about torture, or is she including “torture lite”? Ms. Rice mentioned “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”, which, per the WaPo, includes practices that might not be considered to be torture.

Frankly, I don’t think torture is a good way to make terrorists talk. If they are willing to die for their cause I think they would be willing to undergo a little torture as well.

And, I might add, I don’t agree that torture should ever be used! When you lower yourselves to the level of the slime that attacked the USA you lose the moral high ground.

Not under any circumstances should this be allowed!

Well Zeb,

That’s the state of the current law at any rate – there’s not currently a torture exception. The real fight is over stuff that’s not torture, but isn’t pleasant either.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Frankly, I don’t think torture is a good way to make terrorists talk. If they are willing to die for their cause I think they would be willing to undergo a little torture as well.

And, I might add, I don’t agree that torture should ever be used! When you lower yourselves to the level of the slime that attacked the USA you lose the moral high ground.

Not under any circumstances should this be allowed![/quote]

Some sanity from a fellow conservative! Great to see.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Well Zeb,

That’s the state of the current law at any rate – there’s not currently a torture exception. The real fight is over stuff that’s not torture, but isn’t pleasant either.[/quote]

Sure it isn’t. Here’s China’s torture policy, per an article in the New York Times last week (not my favorite paper either):

“The authorities ban only the sort of torture, called kuxing in Chinese, that meets a narrow definition of violent punishment leaving a lasting impact, like scars or disability, Mr. Nowak said. Officials have not done enough to outlaw physical or psychological abuse that does not produce a visible injury, Mr. Nowak said.”

That’s a much more expansive definition of torture than the Bush Justice Department memos spelled out. By almost any rational definition, our country tortures some (even if only a small minority) of its enemies. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Well Zeb,

That’s the state of the current law at any rate – there’s not currently a torture exception. The real fight is over stuff that’s not torture, but isn’t pleasant either.

GDollars37 wrote:

Sure it isn’t. Here’s China’s torture policy, per an article in the New York Times last week (not my favorite paper either):

“The authorities ban only the sort of torture, called kuxing in Chinese, that meets a narrow definition of violent punishment leaving a lasting impact, like scars or disability, Mr. Nowak said. Officials have not done enough to outlaw physical or psychological abuse that does not produce a visible injury, Mr. Nowak said.”

That’s a much more expansive definition of torture than the Bush Justice Department memos spelled out. By almost any rational definition, our country tortures some (even if only a small minority) of its enemies. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.[/quote]

Sorry G,

But the only Kool-Aid seemingly being consumed is the kind that makes a person think his personal sensibilities trump legal definitions and treaty obligations. If you don’t like the current law, advocate for a change, but don’t pretend torture is occurring when it most obviously isn’t. As I have pointed out many, many times, even the lefty groups – the ones that want to maintain credibility at any rate – don’t accuse the U.S. of torture. They use very particular phraseology: tantamount to torture, akin to torture, etc.

Which, of course, you do as well: “by almost any rational definition,” nicely leaving the loophole for the actual definition. Thanks for that.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Well Zeb,

That’s the state of the current law at any rate – there’s not currently a torture exception. The real fight is over stuff that’s not torture, but isn’t pleasant either.

GDollars37 wrote:

Sure it isn’t. Here’s China’s torture policy, per an article in the New York Times last week (not my favorite paper either):

“The authorities ban only the sort of torture, called kuxing in Chinese, that meets a narrow definition of violent punishment leaving a lasting impact, like scars or disability, Mr. Nowak said. Officials have not done enough to outlaw physical or psychological abuse that does not produce a visible injury, Mr. Nowak said.”

That’s a much more expansive definition of torture than the Bush Justice Department memos spelled out. By almost any rational definition, our country tortures some (even if only a small minority) of its enemies. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Sorry G,

But the only Kool-Aid seemingly being consumed is the kind that makes a person think his personal sensibilities trump legal definitions and treaty obligations. If you don’t like the current law, advocate for a change, but don’t pretend torture is occurring when it most obviously isn’t. As I have pointed out many, many times, even the lefty groups – the ones that want to maintain credibility at any rate – don’t accuse the U.S. of torture. They use very particular phraseology: tantamount to torture, akin to torture, etc.

Which, of course, you do as well: “by almost any rational definition,” nicely leaving the loophole for the actual definition. Thanks for that.[/quote]

The quick definition I found for “torture” is the following: a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. Leaving aside the fact that this leaves outside psychological torture, which can be equally crippling, you’ll see that the John Yoo definition of torture is a lot narrower than this. So yes, we torture.

“By any rational definition” meant that I’m virtually unable to see how you, the WSJ, and a few other folks can not consider what we’re doing “torture.” At least a dozen people that we know about (underline those last four words) have been “water-boarded,” an act that led to court-martials in the past in the U.S. Army and is now officially sanctioned as, what’s the euphemism du jour, a “stress technique”? And it only gets worse from there.

Look at Captain Fishback’s letter, Guantanamo abuses (undoubtedly inflated in the mainstream press, but still nothing to be proud of), beating deaths at Bagram, the Red Cross reports on the subject, internal Army investigations…Of course this administration is not gonna come right out and say it endorses torture. Though the gross mismanagement in Iraq might make you think otherwise, they’re a little too smart for that. But they’ll water down the definition of torture as much as they can, make sure they’re only doing it in other countries not governed by U.S. law (hence our “detention centers” in former communist prisons in Eastern Europe), and make sure the men (and woman) at the bottom of the ladder take the fall for those above.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

The quick definition I found for “torture” is the following: a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. Leaving aside the fact that this leaves outside psychological torture, which can be equally crippling, you’ll see that the John Yoo definition of torture is a lot narrower than this. So yes, we torture.

“By any rational definition” meant that I’m virtually unable to see how you, the WSJ, and a few other folks can not consider what we’re doing “torture.” At least a dozen people that we know about (underline those last four words) have been “water-boarded,” an act that led to court-martials in the past in the U.S. Army and is now officially sanctioned as, what’s the euphemism du jour, a “stress technique”? And it only gets worse from there.

Look at Captain Fishback’s letter, Guantanamo abuses (undoubtedly inflated in the mainstream press, but still nothing to be proud of), beating deaths at Bagram, the Red Cross reports on the subject, internal Army investigations…Of course this administration is not gonna come right out and say it endorses torture. Though the gross mismanagement in Iraq might make you think otherwise, they’re a little too smart for that. But they’ll water down the definition of torture as much as they can, make sure they’re only doing it in other countries not governed by U.S. law (hence our “detention centers” in former communist prisons in Eastern Europe), and make sure the men (and woman) at the bottom of the ladder take the fall for those above.[/quote]

G–

Did you know we use waterboarding as part of training for some of our own forces to resist torture? Though, of course, they know for certain that minus some gross mistake they won’t be drowned. Just thought you might like to know that little tid bit of information.

And while I appreciate your quickly finding a definition, I also thank you for referencing John Yoo’s (among the others who did the legal analysis) definition, which comports with our obligations under national law. That’s the applicable definition for this discussion.

And what I said was that it’s not legal to torture, and there has never been a torture loophole for U.S. personel. If a U.S. person were to engage in torturing a prisoner, he would be subject to criminal punishment or court martial, depending on who had jurisdiction.

So no, we have not legalized torture.

If there have been incidents, then I certainly hope they are investigated and properly handled. But it’s not part of U.S. policy, and there is no torture loophole.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

The quick definition I found for “torture” is the following: a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. Leaving aside the fact that this leaves outside psychological torture, which can be equally crippling, you’ll see that the John Yoo definition of torture is a lot narrower than this. So yes, we torture.

“By any rational definition” meant that I’m virtually unable to see how you, the WSJ, and a few other folks can not consider what we’re doing “torture.” At least a dozen people that we know about (underline those last four words) have been “water-boarded,” an act that led to court-martials in the past in the U.S. Army and is now officially sanctioned as, what’s the euphemism du jour, a “stress technique”? And it only gets worse from there.

Look at Captain Fishback’s letter, Guantanamo abuses (undoubtedly inflated in the mainstream press, but still nothing to be proud of), beating deaths at Bagram, the Red Cross reports on the subject, internal Army investigations…Of course this administration is not gonna come right out and say it endorses torture. Though the gross mismanagement in Iraq might make you think otherwise, they’re a little too smart for that. But they’ll water down the definition of torture as much as they can, make sure they’re only doing it in other countries not governed by U.S. law (hence our “detention centers” in former communist prisons in Eastern Europe), and make sure the men (and woman) at the bottom of the ladder take the fall for those above.

G–

Did you know we use waterboarding as part of training for some of our own forces to resist torture? Though, of course, they know for certain that minus some gross mistake they won’t be drowned. Just thought you might like to know that little tid bit of information.

And while I appreciate your quickly finding a definition, I also thank you for referencing John Yoo’s (among the others who did the legal analysis) definition, which comports with our obligations under national law. That’s the applicable definition for this discussion.

And what I said was that it’s not legal to torture, and there has never been a torture loophole for U.S. personel. If a U.S. person were to engage in torturing a prisoner, he would be subject to criminal punishment or court martial, depending on who had jurisdiction.

So no, we have not legalized torture.

If there have been incidents, then I certainly hope they are investigated and properly handled. But it’s not part of U.S. policy, and there is no torture loophole.[/quote]

Yeah, I actually met a guy who went through waterboarding during CIA training, although the way he described it was a little bit different, technique-wise, than the method most often attributed to the U.S. They do much worse stuff to Special Forces guys in training according to him. What does that tell you though? It tells me that we’re adopting the tools of our enemies, and, if in more limited cases, their inhumanity.

We clearly have two different definitions of what constitutes torture, and I can only hope and pray that mine and McCain’s and the old Army’s standard is the one that becomes uniform U.S. policy. You do seem to be pretty hung up on our legal obligations though, and not our moral ones.

Interesting.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_04_corner-archive.asp#084317

MCCAIN AND THE CHURCH EFFECT [Mark R. Levin]

Ok, let me throw this out there. I actually believe that John McCain is about to do as much damage to the CIA’s ability to function as Frank Church did in the 1970s.

I was prodded to do a little more research on the subject of the UN Convention Against Torture and the rest, and the Congressional Research Service noted that in his transmittal of the Convention for ratification, President Reagan provided that the definition of torture was to be interpreted in a “relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned.” “… the State Department suggested that rough treatment falling into the category of police brutality, 'while deplorable, does not amount to ‘torture’ for purposes of the Convention, which is ‘usually reserved for extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel practices … [such as] sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging positions that cause extreme pain.’”
McCain’s Amendment flies in the face of the concerns President Reagan himself had with defining torture down–and in McCain’s case, defining it to include “undignified” treatment. Anyone who’s dealt with the DMV has been subjected to “undignified” treatment. I think Reagan was right, and McCain is wrong. There is no compelling reason to change course here. Indeed, the compelling case is to leave well enough alone. Our government is reacting to the false allegations of European bureaucrats, phony human rights groups, and the like. These are the same people who refused to lift a finger to help stop the widespread murder, torture and rape of untold numbers of Iraqis. They are in no position to lecture us–or more accurately, we ought not be taking direction from them.
McCain is putting our military and intelligence interrogators in an impossible position. He seeks to expand the definition of torture without defining it (leaving it first to the interrogator to make a best guess, and then a court to make the final call) and he seeks to apply the law outside U.S. territory–exactly what Reagan rejected. And as I’ve said repeatedly, where is the evidence of widespread “torture” which is presumably the basis for changing course? I remain mystified how we’ve reached this point. But, then again, I was mystified by the great rush to pass unconstitutional limits on political speech, too. McCain was the driving force behind that, and if anything, we should be more skeptical about his “reform” agenda, not less.

One of the things that STRONGLY makes me reconsider whereas I otherwise would see it as a necessary evil is the recent information coming out that our belief that Iraq was associated with terrorism was heavily based on the testimony of a detainee that lied to avoid being tortured. I think more and more information is coming out that torture is NOT efficacious-that those threatened will say anythign.

These arguments against torture based on the “moral high-ground” are truley demonstrative of a failure to appreciate the scenarios in which such methodologies are employed. There is little room for morality in the act of war, and despite what you may say, the ability to claim “Well we still have our values” is surely little comfort for defeat.

I find it truley odd that on a site where so many like to claim themselves as “T-Men”, the same individuals would allow their decision making influenced by the emotional appeals which clog clear thinking. One can only hope that other men, better men, are never subjected to the faulty leadership of such reasoning. As Karl von Clausewitz said with regards to war: “War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means.” Such is the case with what so many of you have haphazardly labeled torture.

Torture is nothing more than the act of interogation by “other means.” Anyone who has trained or engaged in the act understands that its application without necessity is ultimatley unproductive, as the target will most often dissiminate information whether true or false to end the engagement. However, in the hands of professionals, it can prove an effective means to obtain time-sensitive information.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Did you know we use waterboarding as part of training for some of our own forces to resist torture? Though, of course, they know for certain that minus some gross mistake they won’t be drowned. Just thought you might like to know that little tid bit of information.

[/quote]

Boston,

You know that’s not the same thing. Of course our troops know WE’RE not going to drown them. They’re our troops. What they don’t know is what the enemy is going to do. The enemy just might drown them, even if by accident.
I do know some guys who went through SERE school in the Army, and several of them were injured, albeit not by waterboarding.
I would actually be a bit suprised if you could document that there haven’t been any fatal “training accidents” occurring during SERE school.

[quote]Carpdm13 wrote:
However, in the hands of professionals, it can prove an effective means to obtain time-sensitive information.[/quote]

Putting the retributavist, moral analysis aside for the moment, more and more evidence says that it’s a pretty ineffective means. So it’s a balancing act. The fact is that if we get more false information that we act on that causes us more problems than good information that makes us safer, it’s not something we should be doing. I’m not entirely sure this is the case But it’s beginning to seem to be.

[quote]Carpdm13 wrote:
… However, in the hands of professionals, it can prove an effective means to obtain time-sensitive information.[/quote]

In my experience, very often the only difference between a professional and an amateur is that the professional is getting paid.

It’s very rare to see an actual difference in quality of the work they produce.

And interested amateur often outperforms most well-paid “professionals”.

I’m afraid I’m with ZEB on this. We can not loose the moral high-ground. We can not claim to protect civilisation and democracy, while in the same time sinking to their level.

Let’s not kid ourselves, the gloves come of in any war. But we’re not talking about the ticking time bomb scenario here. We’re talking about thousands of people, often swept up in random searches in Iraq and Afghanistan, being detained.

Should someone risk torture because he was in the wrong place on the wrong time? Would that really be all it takes?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Frankly, I don’t think torture is a good way to make terrorists talk. If they are willing to die for their cause I think they would be willing to undergo a little torture as well.

And, I might add, I don’t agree that torture should ever be used! When you lower yourselves to the level of the slime that attacked the USA you lose the moral high ground.

Not under any circumstances should this be allowed![/quote]

Nice post

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_04_corner-archive.asp#084317

MCCAIN AND THE CHURCH EFFECT [Mark R. Levin]

Ok, let me throw this out there. I actually believe that John McCain is about to do as much damage to the CIA’s ability to function as Frank Church did in the 1970s.

I was prodded to do a little more research on the subject of the UN Convention Against Torture and the rest, and the Congressional Research Service noted that in his transmittal of the Convention for ratification, President Reagan provided that the definition of torture was to be interpreted in a “relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned.” “… the State Department suggested that rough treatment falling into the category of police brutality, 'while deplorable, does not amount to ‘torture’ for purposes of the Convention, which is ‘usually reserved for extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel practices … [such as] sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging positions that cause extreme pain.’”
McCain’s Amendment flies in the face of the concerns President Reagan himself had with defining torture down–and in McCain’s case, defining it to include “undignified” treatment. Anyone who’s dealt with the DMV has been subjected to “undignified” treatment. I think Reagan was right, and McCain is wrong. There is no compelling reason to change course here. Indeed, the compelling case is to leave well enough alone. Our government is reacting to the false allegations of European bureaucrats, phony human rights groups, and the like. These are the same people who refused to lift a finger to help stop the widespread murder, torture and rape of untold numbers of Iraqis. They are in no position to lecture us–or more accurately, we ought not be taking direction from them.
McCain is putting our military and intelligence interrogators in an impossible position. He seeks to expand the definition of torture without defining it (leaving it first to the interrogator to make a best guess, and then a court to make the final call) and he seeks to apply the law outside U.S. territory–exactly what Reagan rejected. And as I’ve said repeatedly, where is the evidence of widespread “torture” which is presumably the basis for changing course? I remain mystified how we’ve reached this point. But, then again, I was mystified by the great rush to pass unconstitutional limits on political speech, too. McCain was the driving force behind that, and if anything, we should be more skeptical about his “reform” agenda, not less.
[/quote]

The Red Cross and Amnesty International are “phony human rights groups”? You may not agree with them all the time, but a charge like that is another example of conservatives rallying around the president regardless of the facts on the ground.

Of course, this should be expected from the likes of National Review; I let my subscription lapse my senior year of high school after reading the hack job they did on McCain.