Kerry's statement RE: Saddam 1/4/4

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/28/ftn/main590384.shtml

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think it would be dangerous to have Howard Dean as president?

Sen. KERRY: Well, How--listen, Bob, it's up to a lot of other voters to make decisions about this race. What I'm trying to do is point out that for us to beat George Bush, we need a candidate who has theability to go face to face with him on the issue of national security.

George Bush himself has said national security will be the central issue of this campaign. And it's very clear that--that Howard Dean has been all over the place. I mean, if you don't know that Saddam Hussein is guilty and you think he has to have a jury trial, if you make statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations, that we have to prepare for the day when America is not the strongest military in the world, that we're not safer with Saddam Hussein captured, I think those will raise serious doubts in the minds of Americans about whether or not this is the Democratic Party of retreat and confusion or whether it is the Democratic Party in the tradition of Roosevelt and Truman
that knows how to make America safe.

I know how to make America safe and fight a war on terror that does not overextend our troops, that does not put America at greater risk. And we need a nominee about whom there are no questions on the subject of national security.

--------------

Kerry directly implies that Saddam is guilty and doesn't need a trial. These statements are...

Have you lost your MIND, Sen. Kerry? :wtf:

HERE is real disregard for due process for American defendants:

http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=129

Rutland Herald, Wednesday, July 30, 1997
GOVERNOR’S COURT PICKS STIR CRITICS
By Diane Derby
Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER – As Gov. Howard B. Dean was mulling his second appointment to the Vermont Supreme Court earlier this month, he made little effort to mask his distaste for some of the court’s recent decisions.
>>>>>>>
“I’m looking to steer the court back towards consideration of the rights of the victims”, Dean said three weeks ago in a radio interview with Bob Kinzel of the Vermont News Service. “I’m looking to make it easier to convict guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice, and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill”.

Asked if that reflected a “get-tough-on-crime” approach, Dean responded: “I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that.”
Such comments may play well with the general public, but they have sent a chill through the collective spine of lawyers – particularly defense lawyers – around the state.

Throughout his six-year tenure, Dean’s public chiding of the judiciary has led many lawyers to question the doctor-governor’s grasp of constitutional law. In their eyes, Dean views the protections contained in the Bill of Rights as mere “technicalities”.

>>>>>>
“Dean is just ignorant. I don’t think he understands what judges ought to do.” Says Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who teaches advanced courses in constitutional law. “He perceives the Supreme Court as being broken in some way and sees himself on a mission to fix it.”
>>>>>>

And from Thom Hartmann who has recently moved this article off his site:
OUR GOVERNMENT NEEDS GOOD CITIZENS
By Thom Hartmann
>>>>>>>
In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider “common sense more important than legal technicalities” and “quickly convict guilty criminals.”

It’s probably a testimonial to the good job public education has done in Vermont that there wasn’t a public uprising against him ( although the Montpelier letters-to-the-editor section was filled with invective for several weeks). Certainly this is a statement that would not have been acceptable to the people who made Vermont the second independent Caucasian-run nation in North America (after Texas). The founding fathers of Vermont, which dropped its independent-nation status to become the USA’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the “technicalities” of the law. They’d seen it when the British forced them to house their soldiers, shot or hung them for speaking out against the King, and allowed them to engage in commerce or own property only if they gave a portion of their wealth to England. They realized that the government has most of the guns and all of the power, and that it’s only “legal technicalities” which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those “technicalities” into place. When politicians like Dean call for “swift and certain conviction of the guilty” (which actually means “swift and certain conviction of the accused, since a person is only guilty when they’ve been convicted … at least as of the date of this writing) in the courts of the state “regardless of technicalities,” I imagine our founding fathers roll over in their graves.
>>>>>> 
 

I want you to defend Kerry...I dont give two shits about Dean

Pointing to Dean's remarks that he can't SAY Saddam is guilty without a trial being ONE of those gaffes.

Nowhere does Kerry say that Saddam shouldn't GET a trial.

telling the truth, standing by the american system of justice and our law is not a "gaffe".

and the WHOLE paragraph clearly proves it. He was NOT discussing due process and rule of law.

There is NO answer to the preceeding post in that gobbledygook...

because...? :eyes:

nothing is Kerry's fault. Soon you'll be blaming Clinton's penis.

has something on Kerry that may emerge in a court of law?

HMMM

Not implying he does, we know Rummy does, but still

I don't think Bush has to have a trial to think and say he's guilty of crimes against humanity. I say it all the time. I've seen enough documentation.

I don't think Bin Laden has to have a trial to think and say he's guilty of crimes against humanity. I've seen plenty of documented eviodence.

I don't think Saddam has to have a trial to think and say he's guilty of crimes against humanity. I've seen enough documentation of that evidence over the last couple of decades.

So....why is Kerry wrong to say that you don't NEED to have a trial to know that Saddam is guilty or to say so?

Dean can say that Bush may be guilty of knowing about 9-11 and then saying he doesn't believe that theory himself, but Dean CAN'T say that Saddam is guilty based on decades of documented evidence?

Deal with what he REALLY said and not what you THINK he said.

Nowhere does he say Saddam should NOT get a trial. Kerry was talking about Dean's gaffes, not due process of law.

I admire the Kerry campaign's ability to nuance almost anything.

YOU get it straight

His implication is that Saddam is guilty and shouldn't have a trial.

And I've said before...just what is Saddam guilty of? Being a bad person? He was the US loverboy for better tahn 20 years...where was the GUILT then?

If Kerry favors summary executions for Saddam and Osama, why not do the same to the detainees in Guantanamo? If Kerry supports summary executions of the Guantanamo detainees, why not do the same to those detained on American soil for opposing Bush?

Kerry has given the green light to an American Holocaust, because that is where this road invariably leads to.

BTW, no trial of Saddam would be fair without having Reagan, Rumsfeld, and Bush I as co-defendants.

I am unlike most DUers who have some sort of aversion to candidates not quite saying what they mean and later requiring some sort of clarification. This is one of those times I very much hope that Kerry gives a clarification - if what he means is what you say - then I hope he says it. Because the inference more is that a trial is not needed, (because guilt is known) AND that the american public would have more national security questions/worries if one needed a trial.

That is how the words came off. And are very much a concern to me. If his meaning is as you suggest than he needs to clarify it - because a President he could act according to what was said - I would think that he wouldn't. But he could. A clarification is important.

He is one of my top candidates to a big extent based on his liberal tradition, and his understanding of international relations and policies. This statement, if not clarified by him - not an ardent supporter (which, sorry, is read no differently by me than any other ardent supporter finding nice spin to counter act a story that raises concerns among others) - rather compromises that impression.

If Dean has to WAIT for a jury trial BEFORE he KNOWS that Saddam is guilty and Kerry is referring to what the American people will doubt about statements like that. The whole world practically went to war with Saddam in 91 because of his certain guilt and certain brutality.

>>>>
I mean, if you don't know that Saddam Hussein is guilty and you think he has to have a jury trial, if you make statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations, that we have to prepare for the day when America is not the strongest military in the world, that we're not safer with Saddam Hussein captured, I think those will raise serious doubts in the minds of Americans about whether or not this is the Democratic Party of retreat and confusion or whether it is the Democratic Party in the tradition of Roosevelt and Truman
that knows how to make America safe.
>>>>

we went to war with Saddam in 91 because he went a little too far and the world got pissed off so we had to do something

Dont go around re-writing history.

and the rest of that paragraph DOES NOT EXCUSE THE STATEMENT HE MADE

if you...think he has to have a jury trial

If Kerry doesn't, then he needs to be kicked out of office for gross incompetence.

It totally fits with that WHOLE thought. Was Kerry talking about due process for Saddam or was he talking about Dean';s gaffes?

You want REAL disdain for defendant's rights go look at Dean's statements above about REAL defendants in our justice system.

;)

Funny none of you care to regard Dean's actual remarks about OUR judicial system that sound MORE like Bush than ANY of the other candidates.

to be an "American" to be worthy of justice these days. Sounds a bit Bushesque. Funniest, this thread is about John Kerry and you keep talkin' about "DEAN, DEAN, DEAN, DEAN, DEAN................"

But it's not hard to understand the man was listing gaffes and the public perception of those gaffes.

Kerry has NEVER said that someone should be executed without a trial.

He never said that Saddam doesn't NEED a trial.

He said that you don't NEED a trial to KNOW that Saddam is guilty.

Is there ANYONE here at DU who doesn't KNOW that Saddam is guilty of crimes against humanity?

because I don't know he is guilty without a trial. Call me american, I'm funny that way.

and you do not allay my concerns. Only Kerry can do that.

I think he (hopefully unintentionally) is verbally conflates two points that merge - one is suggesting (speciously in my opinion) that to call for a trial is the same as saying "we don't know guilt", and to go on (in extent the logic of "by extension") WE don't need a trial to establish guilt. And says it in a way which suggests no need for a trial at all.

Again I see no harm in candidates coming back for a clarification. The implications here are so serious, that this is a good point for a candidate clarification.

Please keep in mind, I am not playing "gotcha" with the candidate/campaign. He is a top candidate. But one of his achilles heals with many progressive voters is a concern around Iraq and the IWR. Many look past it but remain uncomfortable (count me in this camp.) Statements like this remind us of that discomfort.

There has been an odd sort of poetic irony in this primary season. More than one time - from more than one candidate - when trying to make points at the expense of other candidates (the polite form of campaign slamming) the candidate has said something gaffable that costs more impression points than had been gained.

to SAY he's guilty in 2003?

I am talking about references to need for a trial. And to follow international law - a trial is needed.

Are you now suggesting, or using as a litmus test, that because I say there NEEDS TO BE A TRIAL? That I suggest that Saddam Hussein is not guilty of anything?

This is the root of the problem - the words he chose. They mix together the requiring of a trial to a questioning of guilt and uses the unfortunate word choice of one not needing a trial.

because I felt it needed to be said. Not specific to your post really. ;)

But, he is clearly listing gaffes Dean made in regard to public perception of those gaffes. He may have missed a word or two while answering, but the thrust of what he said is that Dean expressed that he would NEED a trial to determine guilt.

I find that odd since both Saddam and Usama were guilty enough to Dean to bomb their countries and it's too late to hide behind due process when you supported those acts of war against guilty leaders in those countries as Dean did.

and are trying to support it against attacks from the right, mainly from Bush and the neocons, with the Patriot Acts, constant war, etc. Kerry is a spineless senator who voted for the Iraq war and is crapping all over the Constitution now.

<snip>

On the other side of politics, Howard Dean, Democratic candidate for president, didn't think Saddam Hussein's capture made us any safer in America. The other politicians screamed that was un-American. It was John Kerry who said, How could Dean dare say that we were not safer now? Kerry is so sure we're safe that he mortgaged his house the other day to have the money to say Dean is a traitor. This is only before the first primary and Kerry goes for the roof over his head. He seems ready to go naked on these primaries.

<snip>

Suddenly, politicians and the news industry shouted, What are you talking about innocent until found guilty? How can this man Dean say that bin Laden deserves a trial? They said that this was a perfect illustration of Dean talking without thought. And completely un-American, too.

In 1945, they had the Nuremberg trials for Nazis who had killed tens and tens of millions, and had judges, witnesses, evidence and defense counsels. Just the other week, one of the Democratic candidates, Wesley Clark, testified in the Hague at the trial of Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia.

Yet Joseph Lieberman, who is a peripheral candidate now and thus a nasty little man, said that because he relies on the Constitution, Dean is a weakling who would melt in the face of George Bush.

<snip>

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/nyc-bres0103,0,2114805.column?coll=ny-ny-columnists

We can thank all those politicians, from both major parties, that were falling over each other to dismantle the Bill of Rights and sweep away the separation of powers.

"if you make statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations"--

Now the war is justified. Set your watches.

had weapons?

WHICH IS IT, JOHN?? SADDAM'S GUILTY OR YOU WERE TRICKED??

Now his answers are just a jumble of incoherent talking points.

Used to respect the guy, but he is crumbling under the weight of his own aspirations.

Stop slandering the real Dems and go back to voting for more pre-emptive war. Kerry is a joke anymore, as of this latest comment I refuse to support him ever again, even if he gets the nomination (highly unlikely).

and a war criminal, by endorsing the unprovoked attack on Iraq.

Joe Lieberman deserves a lot of credit for sticking to his guns. Lieberman was not interested in legal niceties, or in the UN Charter. Lieberman wanted Saddam out, period!

Lieberman is right for criticizing Kerry for waffling on the war that Kerry supported.

In positions of great power, like that of a Senator, wielding that power has always resulted in unintended and unfortunate consequences. Leveraging Saddam with the threat of force is a close-to-the-brink tactic.

Seems it's all Kerry can do anymore since he's got nothing left to promote himself.

In 1945, President Truman took the effort to convince Stalin and Churchill that the Nuremberg tribunals would be a benefit to the human race by helping to establish a body of international law.

Mr. Bush would cast that effort asunder by rejecting international tribunals in favor of a kangaroo court. If Goering deserved a fair and public trial, then so does Saddam. I don't trust Bush to arrange it and I resent a Democratic presidential candidate giving Bush an assist.

national security will be the central issue of this campaign.

Exactly why Kerry is not ready to be president. He allows bush to frame the debate as long as we allow bush to control what the isues are we lose.

Letting Bush frame the debate is suicide, it is drinking the kool aid.

The time to defend democratic due process is when it's hard -- I agree with Dean, I'm old fashioned -- I still believe in jury trials to determine guilt and punishment!

the sooner we can start dealing with reality.

to see ya' here......:hi:

I would not believe Kerry could possibly have said such a thing...negating the rule of law & the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty. I have lost much respect for him.:-(

Just imagine if Bush came out and said there would be trial for Saddam. DON'T you think that'd raise some red flags?

The others have clearly given in to the Bush regime and are now advocating unjust (and blatantly unAmerican) policies.

Dean will win the Democratic nomination.

There is no teflon like the truth.

so much for the rule of law.

Julie

All of the Democrats know that Saddam is going to trial, and that he belongs in one. Dean may not like it, but there are these things called 'politics' and 'nuance' that we can't just escape from in a Presidential election because we'd like to. In a world where you have to pick your fights, Dean is choosing the right ones at the _wrong_ time. It may win him the Democratic primary, but it will hurt him in the general.

Just consider this: Dean came back with a very strong answer - that as the President he should, above anything else, personify the Rule of Law. And that, as much as he'd want the troops would "shoot to kill" before capturing ObL, he is a candidate for the Presidency - and therefore should hold himself to "presidential standards."

I didn't hear Kerry rebutting that.

So - what about my li'l conspiracy theory, that Kerry actually set up the opportunity for Dean to clear that issue?

Given the pernicious resurgence of this issue, I'm actually hoping that it was intended that way...

And if it wasn't, I still think Dean kicked butt with his strong reply. It's an issue that should have been put to rest long time ago.

Whatever our candidate of choice- we're all running to oust B* here.