John McCain's values

Senator John McCain's book, Faith of my Fathers, is telling - very telling indeed. In fact, it tells us a lot more about McCain than many of his most ardent supporters know. All they "know" is that he's a "war hero" and a "maverick" - and (apparently) that's all they will trouble themselves to know.

Sorry to disappoint, but that's not good enough. This self-described "straight talker" wants to be our next president. He cannot be allowed to get elected by flying under the radar, so to speak. Fortunately, we have Faith of my Fathers to guide us, which I strongly urge any and all to read. It is highly unlikely that our lapdog mainstream media types are going to point out what I'm about to share with you.

My intention is to post at least one more blog, after this one, based on McCain's book. This will be highly analytical, obviously not suitable for those who prefer their politics in sound bites.

The Massie Affair

The Massie Affair (a 1932 criminal trial in Hawaii) is described in McCain's book, though it has been covered far more extensively by other writers. Briefly, US Navy Lieutenant Massie's wife accused a group of Hawaiian locals of raping her. The resulting trial held in a US court of law ended in a hung jury, with the accused being released on bail pending retrial. In the words of wikipedia:

QUOTE:

Grace Fortescue [the "rape" victim's mother] was not willing to wait for another trial and talked Thomas Massie into kidnapping Joseph Kahahawai, the darkest skinned of the five defendants, with the help of two Navy enlisted men. Kahahawai underwent "interrogation", as Fortescue, Massie and the two navy men attempted to beat a confession out of him - eventually, one of the group of four shot Kahahawai.

:UNQUOTE [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massie_Trial ]

McCain's Reaction

On page 68 of Faith of my Fathers, McCain gives us a bit of insight into his own values by saying:

QUOTE:

The conduct of this officer shocked and outraged the rest of Hawaii's naval community, but not because the man had exacted mortal vengeance for his wife's rape. That showed poor judgment, perhaps, but given the nature of the alleged crime, the act was forgivable. What was unforgivable was that the officer had involved enlisted men in his crime, placing them in great jeopardy to help him avenge an offense that concerned only him and his wife. That was a grave breach of an officer's duty to his men.

:UNQUOTE.

John McCain, however, is overlooking something very profound - a naval officer's oath. An oath which McCain himself had taken when he received his own commission. An oath similar to that taken by incoming US presidents, having these words in common: "defend the Constitution of the United States."

These are the words McCain is overlooking:

"I, (state your full name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

My specific and profound charges against John McCain:

Even though McCain swore to "defend the Constitution of the United States," he doesn't take Lt. Massie to task for violating this oath. Massie's violation consisted of murdering a man, thereby denying him of his constitutional rights. Defendants are guaranteed, by our Constitution, due process of law when they are taken to court. The accused were not (yet) found guilty - they were out on bail pending retrial, since the first trial ended in a hung jury.

Yet McCain wrote, "...given the nature of the alleged [my emphasis - Steve Searle] crime, the act was forgivable." I emphasized the word alleged to underscore a point. McCain thinks it's okay to engage in an act of premeditated murder in order to seek revenge for alleged crimes. Apparently McCain is forgetting what courts of law are for and why our Constitution (which he and Lt. Massie swore to defend) sets them up.

McCain frets about how a naval officer has a duty to his men (which, by the way, isn't even mentioned in the officer's oath). He calls it "unforgivable" that an officer would involve enlisted men to avenge a (perceived) wrong committed against that officer and his wife. But McCain says NOTHING about how this officer betrayed his oath by disregarding provisions of the Constitution, which he swore to defend.

In addition, I take exception to the idea that this "alleged" rape was of concern to "only him and his wife." Crimes of violence are not just personal affairs between the abuser and the abused. Society also suffers and, therefore, asserts its right to defend itself in courts of law.

I'm starting to wonder if McCain gives much thought to the things he writes. It's bad enough when a candidate misspeaks himself (or herself) on the campaign trail. I am much less forgiving of errors rendered in print media.

"John McCain, we bother to have laws and Constitutions to elevate us above the law of the jungle. If you can't be bothered to defend the Constitution by denouncing a fellow officer when he trashes it, then please don't bother to take any kind of oath that says you will." - Steve Searle.

Other considerations of values and religion

QUOTE:

My mother said that on the ship that returned him to the States, the disgraced Massie was observed to be frequently drunk and "making a natural fool of himself." She claims that some years later, he was incorrectly reported to have killed himself - an act that most of his fellow officers and their wives who had known of his crime and the damage it had done to the Navy's honor thought appropriate.

:UNQUOTE [page 69, Faith of my Fathers]

It's too bad McCain doesn't see fit to be more thorough here. He seems to think it's okay to commit suicide when it's a matter of  "damage..done to the Navy's honor..." It's true that McCain doesn't give his own opinion in this brief quote, but neither does he disavow what "most of his fellow officers...thought appropriate."

I always thought Christians regarded suicide as a sin which would bar one from heaven. Apparently not, according to this source:

QUOTE:

If one is a Christian and commits suicide, that one will go to Heaven, If one is a lost sinner and commits suicide that one will go to Hell. The Christian who commits suicide does not go to Heaven because of the suicide but because that one is saved. The sinner who commits suicide does not go to Hell because of the suicide but because that one has never been born again.

:UNQUOTE [http://en.allexperts.com/q/Baptists-954/unforgivable-sin.htm ]

Just to be perfectly clear here, McCain's quote doesn't say:

[Massie] was incorrectly reported to have killed himself - an act that most of his fellow officers and their wives who had known of his crime and the damage it had done to the Navy's honor would have thought appropriate, provided he had first become a born again Christian.

Also, I would much rather have read that McCain said:

I have fervently prayed over the years that Massie repent and atone for his sins against the Navy and, more importantly, against the US Constitution.

But...McCain said no such thing.

Since McCain approves of revenge killings:

I wonder how John McCain would react if one of the descendants of the murdered man sought revenge by assassinating a high-ranking naval officer. In McCain's own words:

QUOTE:

They [Massie and his co-defendants] had escaped justice, however. The Navy had intervened in the case to help in their defense, and, after their conviction, to help persuade the governor of Hawaii to commute their sentence from ten years to one hour. After the convicted vigilantes had served their hour in the governor's office, the Navy quickly sent them and Thalia Massie back to the States.

:UNQUOTE.

A man is murdered and the guilty serve a one hour sentence? And not even in jail, but in the governor's office?? So that's what constitutes an appropriate sentence in the eyes of the US Navy? No wonder such a descendant might want to seek revenge against such a Navy. Again, how would John McCain feel about that? He seems to be okay with the general concept of revenge taken outside of courts of law. But perhaps even John McCain's values concerning appropriate revenge have limits.

By the way, the charges against the men accused of rape were dropped and there never was a retrial.

Steven Searle for US President in 2008

"As I keep reminding my fellow Americans over and over again - you have a responsibility to read and ponder the writings of your presidential candidates. It doesn't take much analytical effort to reveal error in much of what they say" - Steve.

The Best Party Available

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com