John McCain, U.S integrity, and terror

I watched one of John McCain's campaign speeches recently..
If I could claim to agree with John McCain, it would be on torture,
when he answered the question "what does it mean to you to lead by integrity"

his response "announce we will never torture another person in American custody."

now, that is the part I agree with him on, in all cases I think torture is wrong. (including excessive use of force by police authorities nationwide, but that is a whole other issue)

In promoting our wars in the middle east, and all those great 'American values' they supposedly protect, I see a problem when we are defining people as terrorist threats..

not limited to McCain's question of treatment, there is also slight issue, how do they get into American custody in the first place?

He'd gone on to say we should "close Guantanamo bay, and move them to Ft. Levin where there is a federal detention center."

As far as I'm concerned almost none of the people in custody in the interest of U.S national security are there based on any sort of hard evidence, and shouldn't be detained Anywhere. These arrests and methods of obtaining evidence were well outlined in the Patriot Act, especially SEC. 236A. (a) (for more specifics on what they are defining http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm) but the patriot act is made up of definitions and actions to be taken against perceived threats be they realistic or not.
It is because of irrational fear and reckless acts on the part of our government that these people are being so mistreated. It is no small group either, in Fran Townsend's statements to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, the number of people we have detained and "rendered" and who we are "not torturing" currently is about a hundred to a hundred-fifty. That is the total that has been disclosed to us, I could see, judging by this administration's willingness to tell the whole truth, there being many more cases of rendition and torture.. (for more estimates on number of detainees and explanation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4088746.stm)

What I see here is a failure to address our motivation, method, and moral standing when we arrest these individuals. I don't think we are right to do so in the first place. He says we should continue our policies which are only possible without habeas corpus. I think not having habeas corpus is a pretty important issue in trust and integrity, which should have been better addressed by McCain since "one of the first challenges in '09 is to ensure trust." He didn't address it because he is largely responsible. He initially refused to back legislation that went directly against the Geneva Conventions, but allowed it to instead by determined by the president how to interpret those policies. It was the same kind of move he pulled when dodging questions about his standpoints on topics like gay marriage, saying he'd leave that to the states and other people to decide. Specifically, and better worded

"When the parties emerged, the compromise looked uncannily like the original administration bill. Nominally, we reaffirm the Geneva protections. But the bill explicitly authorizes the president to define what that means. A detainee's right to challenge his detention to an independent judge (habeas corpus) is still eliminated, as is the right of the accused to see evidence. And the CIA retains the ability to spirit people to third countries that don't even pretend to ban torture." http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-23.htm

I do not trust a government that arbitrarily detains people for unstated purpose, as long as they should choose to. There are a lot of people working to promote national security, like the JTTF here's a url that has the glittering outlook on their efforts http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec04/jttf120114.htm.

"And here's the final—and most important—thing you should know about these JTTFs: They are working 24/7/365 to protect you, your families, and your communities from terrorist attack."

I personally am not afraid of terrorist attacks, not nearly as much as I am afraid of losing (and having lost) my individual freedoms here "at home." I cannot stand to think of the amount of human suffering that has been a direct effect of our national security efforts.

We need to wake up, we condemn other countries for Human Rights Violations, when we are a perpetrator of many crimes against our citizens and others. It is the role of the "moral majority" to take action to stop this. Are we so arrogant to believe we can justify these actions by later explaining some benevolent motivation?

Nothing can justify for me this wrongdoing, and the many others committed by our government, and I find myself accountable as a part of this greater and increasingly faceless evil that is the united states. Get me wrong, if that be the case.