The Tragedy of John McCain

By now, I'm sure many of you have heard John McCain's position regarding the use of torture (ahem) enhanced interrogation techniques, the waterborading of Khalid Shake Muhammad and the Death of Osama Bin Laden.

In short?

1) Traditional methods of interrogation led to Bin Laden's capture
2) Torture doesn't work and produces bad information
3) The Republicans are full of shit on this one.

Now let me say up front: There's a LOT that John McCain does, says, believes and champions that I don't not support or agree with.  (And to be fair, as it turned out, I can say the same about Obama! LOL) And I'm well aware that his "Maverick" label is more a creation of his own campaign strategists and the media than anything based in reality.  But in those rare instances when a Republican gets it right and speaks the truth, 80% of the time that Republican seems to be John McCain.  (And before you dispute that, do the math, and first consider how rare it this that this actually happens!)

Unfortunately, these rare occasions when Senator McCain stands up to his party, stands up to popular (on the Right anyway) but ultimately immoral and illegal behavior, and shows himself to be a fine, upstanding, principled, American Public Servant, only serve to contrast John McCain-R the party sell out that we saw in the years between being knee-capped by George Bush in the 2000 Republican Primaries and the 2008 Presidential Campaign in which he became a more reliable proponent of party talking points than all of AM Talk Radio and Fox News combined.  Oh, yeah, and along the way... INTRODUCED AMERICANS TO SARAH F. PALIN!

WTF happened? 

It like after the 2000 Primaries he made a personal pact, George Wallace style, that he'd never be out-niggered (or out-liberaled) ever again, and started a steady march to the Right that continued even after his 2008 Presidential electoral loss to Barack Obama!

I mean... How can someone who demonstrates that they have enough of a conscience to make a statement like this one, spend so much of the rest of their time trying to prove otherwise?!  How does a guy that I probably would have voted for in 2000 (yeah, though admittedly I learned a LOT in the years that followed) become such an utterly despicable sell-out, and then have the nerve to show me something like this, as if to say, "The John McCain you admired once? The one that would have kept you in the Republican party (albeit in the libertarian faction)? He's still here!  Deep down.  I did all I could to suppress him all these years, but I'm too old to ever run again, so I'll let him out occasionally. Just to tease you a little, and make you think of what might have been!"

For brief moment, seeing him on CNN the other day, I felt like I should party like it was 1999. 

I'm sure it won't last.  The Right can't allow the truth to be told.  Especially not on national television.

A couple more ideas on health care...

I wanted to add a few ideas to the health care proposal I laid out before. The first two have to deal with malpractice. Malpractice is a big part of health care costs and, because of the surplus of lawyers in this country, it really doesn't act in any ways that bring us better care. And, according to the theory of macroeconomics, if you can lower the cost of production, holding the price steady, you can increase supply. And THAT would help us achieve better care. So here are a couple of areas we could address.

The first is anything stemming from a decision or recommendation or test interpretation that your doctor gives you. The kind of "you DO have cancer / you DON'T have cancer" kind of thing. As part of the plan I've laid out, I would automatically cover SECOND OPINIONS. So if you have a lump, and he says, "it's not cancer," there would then be four possibilities.

1) you accept that information, and he's right.
2) you accept that information, and he's wrong.
3) you get a second opinion and the second doc reaches the same conclusion
4) you get a second opinion and the second doc reaches a different conclusion

In case (1), no problem. In case (2), because you waived the second opinion that you were entitled to, in doing so you are also waiving your right to sue for anything resulting form that information. In case (3) you have confirmation, but they could still BOTH be wrong. Guess what? STILL can't sue. Why? State of the Art. If two (or more) doctors reach the same conclusion - WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH EACH OTHER (obviously) that this would fall under the category of "technology just isn't advanced enough" or "you had a really weird case." Sucks to be you, BUT: It's not the doctor's fault! Your medical expenses from here out are covered anyway, and in absence of entitlement to punitive damages, what are you going to sue for? If you end up in case FOUR, well... time to start asking QUESTIONS, and being part of the process of deciding what the right option is for you: 'Wait and see' or 'Play it safe, but risk the more invasive option.' Depending on the possible risks, you may choose one way or the other, but you have to OWN your choice - can't sue - so ASK QUESTIONS. Find out if one doctors tends to follow one philosophy or the other, find out which one suits your own, after all: the final decision belongs with the PATIENT.

And for anyone who thinks this would put a huge strain on the system, I don't think it would. Most of the things we hear from the doctor we just accept. I don't need a second opinon for a broken arm, or antihistamines for allergies or stitches for a laceration. And if two sets of eyes is what I need to feel at ease about that suspicious lump? Then so be it. Get a second. (In case (4) I'd even cover a THIRD.) Knowing they can't be sued merely for giving an opinion, more Doctors would be likely to GIVE one. So the supply issue will mostly fix itself.

The other major areas for malpractice is mistakes and negligence. Now right of the bat, I want to say that the burden of proof for this would be a lot higher. One of the things that a patient accepts when s/he goes under the knife is the very real possibility that they'll stay there. We usually take for granted that nothing will happen, but every patient must be informed of the chances of death or other complications when they decide to go through with a procedure. (Remember the philosophy that drove the first section? Same thing applies here: You take your chances!) So the mere presence of a dead body DOES NOT entitle someone to some money. And remember: all subsequent medical expenses are covered anyway, so there's no need to sue for that. Unless it's something as obvious as "he left an instrument inside you when he stitched you up" chances are, it's just one of those things that happen. Not everyone can be saved. BUT...

What do you do about BAD DOCTORS? Well, part of Obama's plan that I really like is the requirement for electronic records. I'd take this a step farther a keep records of all of the procedures that a Doctor performs, along with any preexisting complicating factors in the patient and the outcome. To keep it simple, each outcome would be given a 1-5 rating. Something like...

5) No complications, full recovery.
4) Minor complications, full recovery after treatment.
3) Serious complications or only partial recovery.
2) Serious complications, with lifelong or chronic issues
1) Fatality

And in doing this, you can compare any given doctor's performance against the industry standard. In really simple terms, if the "average" for triple-bypass surgery is 4.5 and you've got a doctor who's been a 2.5 for, say, two years now, the answer is NOT to simply pay off patents anyway. The answer is: STOP HIM FROM PERFORMING TRIPLE BYPASSES! He could still practice medicine, but not that procedure. Only maybe only that procedure in a supporting role. And when stripped of the "why's" and "what happened's" you end up with an objective score that the doctor's can't conspire among themselves to fix or hide. (As many suspect happens when a hospital investigates an incident on it's own.)

Now... if it CAN be determined that something went fantastically wrong: they amputated the wrong leg, for example, or sewed up a retractor inside of you, then YES, you can still be compensated - but by the SYSTEM. And the SYSTEM will determine on it's own how to handle the DOCTOR.

We need to get rid of this "us versus them" mentality that we have right now. It doesn't help us, and it doesn't improve our care.

I've got some other ideas about 'tort,' but I'll save those for a later post. Let me know what you think!

My Position on Torture

I thought I would post about this, as it's something that been generally well received, though still a bit controversial, over on MediaMatters.

There is a lot of controversy over whether or not to prosecute those responsible for torturing terror suspects as part of the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, rest assured, that, for me, it would be unthinkable to prosecute the low-ranking grunts that actually carried out the 'enhanced interrogations.' Liberal though I may be, I firmly believe that soldiers in the battlefield must follow the orders given by their superiors, and that it should not be up to the soldier to figure out whether a given order is legal or not. If you tolerate that, you will have chaos in the battlefield, people will die, and ANY war effort will crumble. No, soldiers and low ranking intelligence agents MUST carry out their orders, as given. It therefore falls onto the officers and the executive branch of our civilian government to GIVE THEM LEGAL ORDERS, and to be held accountable when they do not. It is therefore the limit of the scope of this discussion as to whether on not to prosecute the high ranking officers, CIA directer George Tenet (and any high ranking subordinates who were the architects of this policy), Attourney General Alberto Gonzalez for crafting the Administration's pseudo-legal reasoning on torture and both former President George W. Bush and former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

And (surprise, surprise) to me there is no question. These men MUST stand trial. The use of torture is both illegal and immoral and profoundly un-American. Is this just my own personal opinion? Hardly. This position is informed by two clear statements in our founding documents:

The Sixth ammendment to our Constitution guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. It is clear that the terror suspects have had these rights denied them.

The Eighth Amendment to our Constitution forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. If TORTURE is not "cruel and unusual" then the words have no meaning.

It is therefore pretty hard for anyone to argue that picking someone up, imprisoning them indefinitely without trial or due process and torturing them, is somehow "Pro-American" when these acts are expressively forbidden by our founding document.

"But Eddie," says the bed-wetting Right-Winger, "These rights only apply to Americans! The terrorists aren't Americans!"

You're WRONG, but nice try. First off, there HAVE been American Citizens who have become victims of these circumstances. Second, how, pray tell, DOES the Constitution protect OUR rights? It does this by limiting the actions that our Government may take; by limiting its authority. Its authority is further limited in these matters by the Geneva Convention. And neither that treaty nor the Constitution of the United States gives any exceptions to the limits placed on our government that they should not apply to non-U.S. citizens. And if any court should say they do, I will find this a profoundly un-American interpretation. Only by PROHIBITING these practices are our rights defended. For, once you allow loopholes, those in power need only find a way to apply the loop hole to anyone they deem inconvenient and YOUR rights are GONE. We mustn't allow this. We mustn't tolerate this at all! (Come on Conservatives! Why do you try actually sticking to your principle of 'limiting' the 'power' of government for a change?!)

"But Eddie," continues the cowardly right-winger, "The enemy is so savage! They BEHEAD people! Without trial! They give no quarter! They offer no rights! They're BRUTAL!"

To which I ask, "If they're so horrible, why on earth should we aspire to become MORE like them?"

"But, but, but Eddie," continues the now trembling Conservative, "Those people (Bush/Cheney & co.) Were trying to save America! They were trying to save YOU!"

OK. First things last. This argument is utter bullshit, and I'll explain why. There is simply no way that Al-Quaeda can destroy AMERICA. In their single biggest battlefield victory, the killed 3000 civilians, and knocked down a few buildings. Not bad, but it cost them their entire air capability a the time do it, and in return we overthrew two sovereign governments within 18 months of the attack. Bottom line? Al-Quaeda poses no threat to my COUNTRY.

You want to know who poses a threat to America? To the American way of life? To American values? Cowardly conservative who, out of either fear or a lust for power or vengeance, will destroy the Constitution, and destroy the very values that made America worth defending in the first place. They're not saving the COUNTRY! OUR GOVERNMENT is the only real threat to this COUNTRY! And only by letting them set aside those values that make US the GOOD GUYS. By setting aside those quintessential American values in order to... what? Save some buildings and save a few lives.

Now... I don't want to seem callous about the loss of life. It's tragic, and I truly mourn every American civilian and every American soldier lost to this enemy. But the bitter fact remains that we will all eventually die. And nothing can stop this. You will die. I will die. (Hopefully later, rather than sooner!) But we WILL all DIE. Period. What must LIVE ON... What must outlive us and our great-grandchildren by centuries and more are the freedoms and liberties that made American the greatest country in the history of the world. It is our FREEDOM that makes us great. And Al-Quaeda can simply NOT take that away. Only OUR GOVERNMENT can. And only if we, in our fear, let them. And this is the ONLY thing worth defending, the only thing worth fighting for in the first place.

And should I die because our government refuse to torture, will my death be taken bitterly? Not at all. In the extremely unlikely event, the utterly minuscule chance that I should be killed in a terrorist plot that could have been prevented if only were we willing to trash our values, then I will have dies in defense of those values, in defense of FREEDOM, every bit as much as those Soldiers dying in the fields of Afghanistan, and arguably MORE so than the Soldiers dying in Iraq.

We must not let our FEAR allow us to permit our government to do the unconscionable. We must not betray our values, or sacrifice our freedoms, just to save our skin. To do so is both cowardly and traitorous. To do so is to give in to fear and hate and to lose sight of what it is we are actually fighting for.

America stands for human rights, the due process of law and, above, all for the freedoms laid out in our Constitution. These are what make us the 'good guys' in this fight. These are what make this land and our way of life worth defending. If we, in our fear and in expediency, allow those things which make this country great to die, then we are no better than our enemy. And THIS liberal will not sit idly and watch his country brought so low. No one who would can do so and still call themselves PATRIOT.



-----------------------------
You may notice that my argument focuses entirely on the MORAL and PATRIOTIC implications of allowing torture. The opposing arguments might carry some weight IF torture was ever shown to be effective, but it hasn't. It fails every common sense test under every scenario. I may take up the more PRACTICAL arguments against torture at a later date, though I personally find them to be moot. Regardless of the [largely imagined] results, torture remains illegal, immoral and Un-American.