Kerry and Torture: Do any of you have some quotes?

As many of you know, I do read some conservative blogs (at least intellectually honest ones), and probably my favorite is andrewsullivan.com, not that I agree with him on a lot of stuff, but his blog is somehow compelling anyway. He has been outstanding condemning the systematic torture of detainees all over the world, that this does NOT represent American values and further endangers us. But here is a typical quote from him when it comes to Democrats and Kerry:



On one hand, Sully has a point that torture was not a focal point of his campaign. But my question for all of you is: did Kerry talk about torture, enemy combatants, Abu Guraib, et al? If so, can you post those quotes? I have decided that if I have some evidence to the contrary I will e-mail him the quotes and links. Yes, I know, Sully is probably a lost cause, but I think a possible constituency for Kerry is disaffected true conservatives who are for sane fiscal responsibility and real freedom. I think they're a group worth going after. Sorry to say, but they're far more sensible than the divorced from reality Lefty Freepers who have no interest whatsoever in facts.

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: CAPTIVES; Bush Voices 'Disgust' at Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 1 05-01-2004
By THOM SHANKER and JACQUES STEINBERG; Thom Shanker reported from Washington for this article and Jacques Steinberg from New York.

Senator John Kerry, Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, issued a statement Friday saying: "I am disturbed and troubled by the evidence of shameful mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. We must learn the facts and take the appropriate action.

"As Americans, we must stand tall for the rule of law and freedom everywhere," Mr. Kerry added. "But we cannot let the actions of a few overshadow the tremendous good work that thousands of soldiers are doing every day in Iraq and all over the world."

And This

Kerry Urges Bush to Voice U.S. Regret On Iraq Abuse
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 32 05-06-2004
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

LOS ANGELES, May 5

Calling the administration's response to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners "slow and inappropriate," Senator John Kerry urged President Bush on Wednesday to express the nation's regrets and to offer an explanation to the world. But he stopped short of demanding that Mr. Bush apologize.

In his first public remarks about the mistreatment by American captors, Mr. Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, said the "horrifying" incidents at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad, were "absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable."

Sen John Kerry urges Pres Bush to express nation's regrets about abuse of Iraqi prisoners and to offer explanation to world, but stops short of demanding apology; calls mistreatment horrifying and inexcusable; responding to question about how he would handle situation, Kerry says situation in Iraq would be very different if he were in office; says Defense Sec Donald Rumsfeld should have notified Congress about events instead of having them find out through news reports; photo (M)

"I believe the president needs to guarantee that the world is going to have an explanation," Mr. Kerry said here at his first news conference in three weeks. He said the abuse had "done a disservice to all our troops" and could put soldiers in Iraq at greater risk, inspire more terrorism and undermine America's efforts in the Middle East.

"I think the world needs to hear from the president that the United States of America regrets any kind of abuse of this kind," he said.

Asked what he would say or do to repair the damage, Mr. Kerry demurred. "Let me just assure you that if I were president, we'd have a very different set of activities going on in Iraq today," he said.

Pressed on whether he believed Mr. Bush should apologize -- as have Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the commander of American-run prisons in Iraq -- Mr. Kerry said: "The president of the United States needs to offer the world its explanation, and needs to take appropriate responsibility. And if that includes apologizing for the behavior of those soldiers and what happened, then we ought to do that."

Asked whether he believed that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld should resign over the scandal, Mr. Kerry noted that he called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation months ago over what he called the lack of planning for postwar Iraq.

"With respect to this particular incident, we've got to have the facts," he said. "I want to know, as I think Americans do: Was this isolated? Does it go up the chain of command? Who knew what, when? All those questions have to be answered, so I don't want to shoot from the hip on that."

But Mr. Kerry did single out Mr. Rumsfeld for not notifying members of the Senate about the events at Abu Ghraib even when knowing that the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" was about to report on them last week. He also noted that while an Army report on Abu Ghraib abuses had been "in the pipeline for some period of time," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that he "hadn't even read the executive summary."

"I consider that slow and inappropriate," Mr. Kerry said.

The senator made his remarks at a school in East Los Angeles after delivering a Cinco de Mayo speech on education to about 400 people there. Alongside his wife, who spoke first in fluent Spanish, he ventured a few halting sentences, relying on note cards to tell the largely Hispanic crowd that he had been listening to Spanish-language tapes during his campaign travel but that he needed more "tiempo libre," free time.

He also veered back into Spanish to deliver a trademark stump line: that he was there not just to celebrate a holiday but to mark the beginning "del final del administracion de Bush."

Mr. Kerry met privately later in the day with Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, the Roman Catholic prelate of Los Angeles. The senator, who declined to say beforehand what he would discuss, has come under pressure from the church for his support of abortion rights.

A task force of bishops headed by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington, is studying how clerics should relate to Catholics in public positions -- whether, among other things, they should allow officeholders who take public positions in conflict with church doctrine to receive Communion.

Cardinal Mahony, who is not on the task force, is considered one of the nation's more liberal archbishops.

Photo: John Kerry, a papier-mache sun behind him, spoke on education yesterday at a Cinco de Mayo celebration in Los Angeles. He later addressed prisoner abuse in Iraq, saying the administration had been slow to respond. (Photo by Agence France-Presse)

But that's just his initial reaction to Abu Guraib. Since then we have figured out that the abuse is systematic and all over the globe. I actually just checked out his speech at Georgetown from yesterday and he did mention Gitmo and Abu Guraib, so obviously he's concerned about it, but so far I haven't found a speech where he talks about how because of Bush's classification of terrorists as enemy combatants, not protected by the Geneva Conventions, torture was tacitly approved of. What would Kerry have done had he become president? Would he have stopped this abuse, or would that make him appear too "soft on terrorism". I think he would have stopped it, but I would like to see more forceful quotes of his condemnation of the trampling of American values and human rights. I'll keep looking, too.

First, an analysis from Mother Jones for why he couldn't make this a big issue in the campaign:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/12/12_401.html



Next, is from a Boston Globe article where he was asked about it in a Town Hall meeting in August '04:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/26/kerry_faults_bush_rumsfeld_leadership_in_iraq_prison_scandal?pg=2






And here's another quote from the same Globe article that has nothing to do with torture, but I liked very much. Interestingly, someone said something similar to him yesterday, and he took it in stride. But on August 26, 2004, he was far more emotional -- the SBL and the campaign had taken its toll, and the kindness of one person was very much appreciated:

Is running for County Controller of Delaware County. Great guy. I think I saw this quote when it happened but I didn't connect!!! It is definitely our Larry, though. :D

http://www.delcodems.com/2005%20Candidates.htm

4th person listed under County-wide Offices.

Small world....

I'm not sure what the critics are talking about. Doe this refer back to the 'regime change' thing in early 2003?

Are you referring to my Boston Globe article I linked to?

Based on what I have seen with a little Googling, Kerry did not push this issue other than if a big news story hit about it. However, if someone asked him, he was happy to discuss it, and it was obvious that he despised this policy. Given what he said in 1971, there is no way he would allow torture on his watch. I think Sully is being a bit unfair, acting like Kerry is too wussy to talk about torture. In the political context, it wouldn't bring him any more votes AND the best way to stop the torture would be to get him elected! As far as the McCain amendment, it just made sense to have him do it since a) he's a Republican and b) he was tortured himself. Condemning Democrats like that just pisses me off. But . . . I'll still read Andrew, and link if he comes up with anything interesting to say.

Dear Andrew,

I am writing to you regarding this entry you made recently:

We have seen the ramifications of an improvised, ill-advised, poorly executed policy of allowing abuse of detainees for purposes of "military necessity" as defined by the executive. What we need are laws to create a clear standard both for Geneva-protected combatants and non-Geneva-protected terrorists. That's the Congress's job, not the president's. It's staggering that the McCain Amendment is the first attempt to do that. We have known of these abuses for a long time now. John Kerry wouldn't touch them in the campaign. The feckless Democrats in Congress are too scared of being labeled soft on terror to defend American and Western values; and the corrupt Republicans couldn't give a damn, for the most part, or are too scared to stand up to a president of their own party. The legacy of torture is firstly this president's. But it is also this Congress's.

First, I will concur with you that torture was not one of the big issues in last year's campaign, and perhaps history will judge all of us and our complacency for this omission. Here is a small excerpt from Mother Jones on why this was so:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/12/12_401.html

MJ.com: Could John Kerry have made more of this during the election, and do you think that would have resonated?

MD: I think the Democratic Party was perfectly willing to take the political work that was accomplished by the photographs in the scandal, which in effect reduced President Bush’s approval rating by somewhere between 5 and 10 points last spring; but I don’t think they were willing to run with it. And because Kerry was running away from the charges that he had criticized Americans in a time of war for committing atrocities, he was singularly ill equipped to use the Abu Ghraib issue. So I think they stayed away from this and just kept it at arm’s length. It’s a politically defensible position. But I obviously would have strongly preferred that the Democrats and Kerry himself take this as a major issue.


But in your post above, you say that "Kerry wouldn't touch it". A simple google will prove this statement to be categorically false. First, when a big news report on the subject hit, he talked about it. And, secondly, if people asked him directly about it, he was also very comfortable condemning the Bush Administration. Here are several examples:

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: CAPTIVES; Bush Voices 'Disgust' at Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 1 05-01-2004
By THOM SHANKER and JACQUES STEINBERG; Thom Shanker reported from Washington for this article and Jacques Steinberg from New York.

Senator John Kerry, Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, issued a statement Friday saying: "I am disturbed and troubled by the evidence of shameful mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. We must learn the facts and take the appropriate action.

"As Americans, we must stand tall for the rule of law and freedom everywhere," Mr. Kerry added. "But we cannot let the actions of a few overshadow the tremendous good work that thousands of soldiers are doing every day in Iraq and all over the world."

And another:

Kerry Urges Bush to Voice U.S. Regret On Iraq Abuse
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 32 05-06-2004
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

LOS ANGELES, May 5

Calling the administration's response to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners "slow and inappropriate," Senator John Kerry urged President Bush on Wednesday to express the nation's regrets and to offer an explanation to the world. But he stopped short of demanding that Mr. Bush apologize.

In his first public remarks about the mistreatment by American captors, Mr. Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, said the "horrifying" incidents at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad, were "absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable."

Sen John Kerry urges Pres Bush to express nation's regrets about abuse of Iraqi prisoners and to offer explanation to world, but stops short of demanding apology; calls mistreatment horrifying and inexcusable; responding to question about how he would handle situation, Kerry says situation in Iraq would be very different if he were in office; says Defense Sec Donald Rumsfeld should have notified Congress about events instead of having them find out through news reports; photo (M)

"I believe the president needs to guarantee that the world is going to have an explanation," Mr. Kerry said here at his first news conference in three weeks. He said the abuse had "done a disservice to all our troops" and could put soldiers in Iraq at greater risk, inspire more terrorism and undermine America's efforts in the Middle East.

"I think the world needs to hear from the president that the United States of America regrets any kind of abuse of this kind," he said.

Asked what he would say or do to repair the damage, Mr. Kerry demurred. "Let me just assure you that if I were president, we'd have a very different set of activities going on in Iraq today," he said.

Pressed on whether he believed Mr. Bush should apologize -- as have Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the commander of American-run prisons in Iraq -- Mr. Kerry said: "The president of the United States needs to offer the world its explanation, and needs to take appropriate responsibility. And if that includes apologizing for the behavior of those soldiers and what happened, then we ought to do that."

Asked whether he believed that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld should resign over the scandal, Mr. Kerry noted that he called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation months ago over what he called the lack of planning for postwar Iraq.

"With respect to this particular incident, we've got to have the facts," he said. "I want to know, as I think Americans do: Was this isolated? Does it go up the chain of command? Who knew what, when? All those questions have to be answered, so I don't want to shoot from the hip on that."

But Mr. Kerry did single out Mr. Rumsfeld for not notifying members of the Senate about the events at Abu Ghraib even when knowing that the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" was about to report on them last week. He also noted that while an Army report on Abu Ghraib abuses had been "in the pipeline for some period of time," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that he "hadn't even read the executive summary."

"I consider that slow and inappropriate," Mr. Kerry said.

And from a town hall meeting:

Kerry faults Bush, Rumsfeld leadership in Iraq prison scandal
By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff | August 26, 2004

PHILADELPHIA -- John F. Kerry yesterday harked back to his service in the Vietnam War to decry the abuses that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, fault President Bush for failing to punish the wrongdoers, and renew his call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign because of the problems under his command.

"For any person who has ever served in the military, we all know what 'chain of command' means, we know what accountability and responsibility means, and it's not just the little person at the bottom who ought to pay the price of responsibility," the Democratic presidential nominee said as he opened a town hall meeting intended to focus on job creation and economic issues. "Harry Truman had the sign on the desk and it said, 'The buck stops here.' The buck doesn't stop at the Pentagon."

Kerry's criticism was fueled by two new reports, the first of which faulted members of the administration for creating the environment in which prisoners were allegedly tortured and sexually humiliated. Written by a four-member panel headed by former defense secretary James R. Schlesinger, the report labeled the abuses "acts of brutality and purposeless sadism" and also said, "The abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow standards. . . . There is both institution and personal responsibility at higher levels."

The review panel said Rumsfeld and his top military advisers were partly to blame for the abuse, both for failing to set clear standards for prisoner interrogation and for failing to plan for a postwar environment in which the prison guards became overwhelmed by their responsibilities. Nonetheless, all four members of the panel -- who were appointed by Rumsfeld -- expressly stated he should not resign, with Schlesinger telling reporters at a news conference that Rumsfeld's resignation "would be a boon for all of America's enemies."

Another report, written by Army Major General George R. Fay, was released yesterday and recommended punishment beyond the criminal charges lodged against seven military police troops.

Kerry called on Bush to appoint another commission "that evaluates thoroughly all of the chain of abuses that took place, and why they took place, including the civilian side, the legal interpretations, the memoranda that were put out with respect to who was interpreting which law which way, who made what decisions about Geneva Conventions.

"That's leadership, and that's what ought to happen."

And surely, you have read his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1971, and know this is not a guy who is going to preside over systematic torture. He wasn't afraid of this subject, he just didn't emphasize it during the campaign, because, quite frankly, it wasn't exactly going to earn him more votes. I still remember one swing voter friend of mine, who ultimately swung for Bush, complaining about the news coverage of Abu Ghraib, because it made Americans look bad. It never occurred to her the immorality of what was being done in her name. You and many others in the country may be very upset about this policy, but a lot of Americans a) don't care, b) want it swept under the rug or c) think it's treason for you to even discuss it. In the end, the best way to stop the torture was to get Kerry elected, which you understood. Him talking nonstop about it would NOT have furthered that goal.

In regard to the "feckless Democrats", if Kerry or another Democrat had proposed such an amendment, what are the chances it would come to a vote or be passed? The truth is that McCain was THE senator to offer this amendment because he himself was tortured AND he is a member of the ruling majority party in the Senate. You know this, yet you can't resist trashing Democrats, when they're OUT of power. You may not agree with Democrats on a lot of issues, but if you want accountability on torture, Congress is going to have to change hands in '06. Period. If at that time, they don't address this issue than your feckless remark will be vindicated. But until then, let's be honest about who is responsible for this torture policy -- Bush and the Republican Congress.