Does Anyone Know Kerry's Position on the Guantanamo detainees?

[albionmoonlight]

What's Kerry's take on what we should do with non-U.S. citizens who are being imprisioned by the U.S. on non-U.S. soil?

(Standard disclaimer, etc.: I know that this thread may blow up, but I am actually curious about the answer and this board is still a good way to find information about political topics. Sorry about any collateral damage that may result).

[Butter]

From a discussion on the Kerry web site:

"What is your opinion on the detentions at Guantanamo, and what would you do about the prisoners being held there if you are elected?"
Democrats Abroad – Colombia

Kerry's response:
I am deeply concerned that the Bush Administration has thrown basic civil liberties out the window in their efforts to make Americans feel safer, while doing little to actually make them safer. I do not trust John Ashcroft to protect our civil liberties.

Also, visit http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004462.html for a brief snippet of something he's said previously... but it's more helpful if you read the whole article in context:

"As long as al-Qaida is actively trying to take down America, Sen. Kerry believes that these prisoners should be held as enemy combatants," spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said.

[Butter]

Basically, he's avoiding the question.

[rkmsuf]

Very Cowheresque

[Ksyrup]

From a discussion on the Kerry web site:

"What is your opinion on the detentions at Guantanamo, and what would you do about the prisoners being held there if you are elected?"
Democrats Abroad – Colombia

Kerry's response:
I am deeply concerned that the Bush Administration has thrown basic civil liberties out the window in their efforts to make Americans feel safer, while doing little to actually make them safer. I do not trust John Ashcroft to protect our civil liberties.

Also, visit http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004462.html for a brief snippet of something he's said previously... but it's more helpful if you read the whole article in context:

"," spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said.

So basically, Kerry's answer is "I agree with President Bush that as long as al-Qaida is actively trying to take down America, these prisoners should be held as enemy combatants."

Is the world going to end if the candidates actually agree on one minor point?!

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I'm thinking he takes both sides.

[CamEdwards]

So basically, Kerry's answer is "I agree with President Bush that as long as al-Qaida is actively trying to take down America, these prisoners should be held as enemy combatants."

Is the world going to end if the candidates actually agree on one minor point?!

It sounded more like in answering a direct question, Kerry tried to avoid the issue and bash Bush, while on another occassion his spokeswoman said he supports what Bush is doing regarding enemy combatants.

In other words... a typical Kerry response. :)

[Ksyrup]

I don't think the first (direct) quote from Kerry constitutes a "side." I don't think it answered the question at all. He couldn't - lest he be seen as directly agreeing with the opposing candidate on a particular issue. Oh no!

I'd love to see a debate where a softball question is tossed to one of the candidates - like about child porn or domestic violence - then the follow-up to the other candidate would be, "do you agree with X's position on that?" And then see how hard the second guy works to avoid answering yes to the question, and to give his own answer that basically means "what he said."

[Ryche]

"As long as al-Qaida is actively trying to take down America, Sen. Kerry believes that these prisoners should be held as enemy combatants," spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said.


So basically we're holding them until they die?

[ISiddiqui]

Of course the difference is that even if they are held as enemy combatants that doesn't preclude them from getting legal help.

[Radii]

It sounded more like in answering a direct question, Kerry tried to avoid the issue and bash Bush, while on another occassion his spokeswoman said he supports what Bush is doing regarding enemy combatants.

In other words... a typical politician's response. :)

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Young Drachma]

good question. I had no idea on this at all. But to get the responses is interesting..if nothing else.

[yabanci]

Kerry's position is like most of his others on foreign policy: The same as Bush's, except he'll be more "effective" when holding hostages or invading third world countries.

[Ksyrup]

Kerry's position is like most of his others on foreign policy: The same as Bush's, except he'll be more "effective" when holding hostages or invading third world countries.
You mean, the UN will be more effective...

[yabanci]

You mean, the UN will be more effective...

no.

[Ksyrup]

Excuse me, he means the UN will be more effective...

[Butter]

Excuse me, he means the UN will be more effective...

Is this anything like the old conservative "tax and spend" mantra they'd impose on every Dem. candidate that would run... let's just keep saying that Kerry will bow to the UN on every point and people will believe it? That's kinda weak rhetoric.

Kerry is being a total weasel with his response, but unfortunately (to me) anything short of this with his response and he'll be killed with "weak on terrorism!" until the end of time.

[Ksyrup]

Is this anything like the old conservative "tax and spend" mantra they'd impose on every Dem. candidate that would run... let's just keep saying that Kerry will bow to the UN on every point and people will believe it? That's kinda weak rhetoric.

Kerry is being a total weasel with his response, but unfortunately (to me) anything short of this with his response and he'll be killed with "weak on terrorism!" until the end of time.
Well, I honestly believe that, in time, that's exactly where the liberal viewpoint is heading on the UN's role in world affairs. So to me, it's not rhetoric. It may a few years away from being a plank in the platform, but I see it coming.

As for his response, how would agreeing with the President's position on this one issue equate him with being weak on terrorism? You mean from his own party? Because I don't really see how the Republicans could call him weak when his position would be the same as the Administration's.

[Butter]

Well, I honestly believe that, in time, that's exactly where the liberal viewpoint is heading on the UN's role in world affairs. So to me, it's not rhetoric. It may a few years away from being a plank in the platform, but I see it coming.

K, this is another tired slippery slope argument. I hate to be JG here, but to say that perhaps the UN had a point when saying that Iraq should not be invaded is not equal to saying that the US is under the UN's thumb on all foreign matters. As it turns out, invading Iraq may not have been the best way to go or the next logical line of succession on the terrorism tree. Al-Qaeda is still out there. A dictator in a threatening country with fewer ties to terrorism than an ally of ours (Saudi Arabia) is gone, but where he leaves, another stands ready to take his place somewhere. And, unfortunately for you, Kerry is not a liberal.

As for his response, how would agreeing with the President's position on this one issue equate him with being weak on terrorism? You mean from his own party? Because I don't really see how the Republicans could call him weak when his position would be the same as the Administration's.

I am saying that if he had disagreed with Bush's stance on holding the prisoners at Guantanamo indefinitely with essentially no rights, he would be attacked as weak.

[Easy Mac]

i think his position is to the left while Bush's is to the right.

[BishopMVP]

K, this is another tired slippery slope argument. I hate to be JG here, but to say that perhaps the UN had a point when saying that Iraq should not be invaded is not equal to saying that the US is under the UN's thumb on all foreign matters. As it turns out, invading Iraq may not have been the best way to go or the next logical line of succession on the terrorism tree. Al-Qaeda is still out there. A dictator in a threatening country with fewer ties to terrorism than an ally of ours (Saudi Arabia) is gone, but where he leaves, another stands ready to take his place somewhere. And, unfortunately for you, Kerry is not a liberal.Kerry preaches "multilateralism." Since we already have about 35 countries helping us, this means the UN. My opinion is the UN go fuck itself. It's completely useless and hideously corrupt. Why people still think the UN serves its goal is beyond me. And I disagree with you on what we have accomplished. While Saudi Arabia is worse, Saddam is one less dictator who wants to destroy us, we have recovered much evidence of fraud and duplicity by other countries, and Libya has disarmed, just to name a few benefits in the last year. The strategy in the Middle East isn't something that will work in a year or two, but in 15-20 at the least.

Apparently Canada's PM agrees with me on the UN- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040430/IBBIT30/TPComment/Columnists

[Butter]

and Libya has disarmed,

Thanks to Tony Blair and the UK. So yeah, we'll just band together us and the UK and fuck everyone else. That'll work!

[BishopMVP]

Thanks to Tony Blair and the UK. So yeah, we'll just band together us and the UK and fuck everyone else. That'll work!Gaddafi admitted he was disarming because he was scared he was next. The rest of the world and a number of people in the US, mostly Democrats and people in the State Department, urged conciliation. Bush and Blair stood firm, and after we got the tanker running stuff to him, Gaddafi decided to voluntarily disarm - the only way we'll ever find everything someone was working on.

The threat of force to remove someone violating UN sanctions was necessary, and wasn't there before we invaded Iraq.

And if the "rest of the world" that opposes us (most prominently France and Russia in the case of Iraq) turns out to be getting paid off, I guess that doesn't matter.

[Ksyrup]

K, this is another tired slippery slope argument. I hate to be JG here, but to say that perhaps the UN had a point when saying that Iraq should not be invaded is not equal to saying that the US is under the UN's thumb on all foreign matters. As it turns out, invading Iraq may not have been the best way to go or the next logical line of succession on the terrorism tree. Al-Qaeda is still out there. A dictator in a threatening country with fewer ties to terrorism than an ally of ours (Saudi Arabia) is gone, but where he leaves, another stands ready to take his place somewhere. And, unfortunately for you, Kerry is not a liberal.
I'm not referring to this one issue. I'm referring to the ideological concept. And I disagree with you on your characterization of Kerry.



I am saying that if he had disagreed with Bush's stance on holding the prisoners at Guantanamo indefinitely with essentially no rights, he would be attacked as weak
And if he had, he would have been outright lying, since his position, in reality, is 180 degrees the opposite of your "if" statement. "If" Bush believed that, he'd be attacked as weak, as well. But he doesn't. And neither does Kerry. But Kerry can't risk openly taking a position in agreement with Bush, because THAT would make him look bad to his supporters.

[RendeR]

No matter how you characterize Kerry, there is no conscoinable way we can accept another 4 years of the Bush administration. Its societal suicide.


"excuse me, mr ashcroft, but I'm less afraid of the corpse than I am of YOU..."

this administration MUST end in november.

[BishopMVP]

No matter how you characterize Kerry, there is no conscoinable way we can accept another 4 years of the Bush administration. Its societal suicide.

"excuse me, mr ashcroft, but I'm less afraid of the corpse than I am of YOU..."

this administration MUST end in november.I find this attitude hilarious. For everyone who feels this way, what are you going to do if/when you wake up the second Wednesday in November and Bush has been re-elected?

[Buccaneer]

I find this attitude hilarious. For everyone who feels this way, what are you going to do if/when you wake up the second Wednesday in November and Bush has been re-elected?
The same many felt when Clinton was re-elected in 1996. Life goes on. For those absolutely hating Bush - now you know how many of us felt about Clinton. If you are pointing at Ashcroft, go talk to your Congressperson. They made laws he is enforcing (or he's using war-time laws), including the Patriot Act which Congress happily passed.

[tucker342]

It sounded more like in answering a direct question, Kerry tried to avoid the issue and bash Bush, while on another occassion his spokeswoman said he supports what Bush is doing regarding enemy combatants.

In other words... a typical Kerry response. :)
no, a typical POLITCAL response.

Every politican "beats around the bush" so to speak when asked questions about controversial(sp?) issues

[tucker342]

It sounded more like in answering a direct question, Kerry tried to avoid the issue and bash Bush, while on another occassion his spokeswoman said he supports what Bush is doing regarding enemy combatants.

In other words... a typical Kerry response. :)
no, a typical POLITCAL response.

Every politican "beats around the bush" so to speak when asked questions about controversial(sp?) issues

[SFL Cat]

The same many felt when Clinton was re-elected in 1996. Life goes on. For those absolutely hating Bush - now you know how many of us felt about Clinton. If you are pointing at Ashcroft, go talk to your Congressperson. They made laws he is enforcing (or he's using war-time laws), including the Patriot Act which Congress happily passed.

Yeah, I felt horrible...but nothing a few beers didn't fix.

I see a lot of similarities between this election and the one in 1996...specifically...John Kerry = Bob Dole

[Solecismic]

Out of one side of his face:

"It is imperative that America identify its enemies and do everything possible to keep them from harming innocent citizens. George W. Bush has not done what he can to keep Americans safe."

Out of the other side:

"It is deplorable that human beings are imprisoned without any regard to their civil liberties. George W. Bush has not done what it takes to maintain the rights of the citizens of Afghanistan and other countries."

If Kerry were to watch George W. play a round a golf, one face would condemn him for shooting a bad score and the other face would condemn him for striking innocent golf balls.

If George W. were to donate $5 million to charity, one face would condemn him for not donating enough, and the other would condemn him for ignoring the plight of the endangered Massachusetts titmouse.

Standard Disclaimer: This is not to imply that I will vote for George W. in November. Personally, I think the primary system works to ensure we get the worst possible candidates running for national office. Imagine a Lieberman/McCain election. Now those debates would be worth watching.

[SFL Cat]

Lieberman is the only Democrat I halfway like, but I knew the guy didn't have a chance because he has zero charisma.

Out of all the Dem candidates, Dean and Edwards probably had the most political charisma. I think Dean best energized the "Hate Bush" liberals in the party, but in addition to shooting himself in the foot several times (AAAAARRGGGHH!!!!!), I also think the moderates in the party orchestrated a hatchet job on him when they realized, "my gosh, this guy actually has a chance to win the nomination." Edwards was too much of a newbie this time around, so he probably participated in this campaign cycle to position himself for a run in 08. I've also heard Clinton and his cronies in the party want the nominee (in this case Kerry) to lose, so that Hillary can run in 08 -- it would be almost impossible for her to run against a sitting Democratic president.

[WussGawd]

Out of one side of his face:

"It is imperative that America identify its enemies and do everything possible to keep them from harming innocent citizens. George W. Bush has not done what he can to keep Americans safe."

Out of the other side:

"It is deplorable that human beings are imprisoned without any regard to their civil liberties. George W. Bush has not done what it takes to maintain the rights of the citizens of Afghanistan and other countries."

If Kerry were to watch George W. play a round a golf, one face would condemn him for shooting a bad score and the other face would condemn him for striking innocent golf balls.

If George W. were to donate $5 million to charity, one face would condemn him for not donating enough, and the other would condemn him for ignoring the plight of the endangered Massachusetts titmouse.

Standard Disclaimer: This is not to imply that I will vote for George W. in November. Personally, I think the primary system works to ensure we get the worst possible candidates running for national office. Imagine a Lieberman/McCain election. Now those debates would be worth watching.

Leiberman is even less of a Democrat than I am a Republican. Frankly, Leiberman would have had a better chance running on the "Snowball's Chance in Hell" Ticket than he did as a Democrat.

As for McCain, if it wasn't for Karl Rove and his Donald Segretti-groomed Nixon-era dirty tricks department, John McCain would probably be President.

[Solecismic]

Leiberman is even less of a Democrat than I am a Republican. Frankly, Leiberman would have had a better chance running on the "Snowball's Chance in Hell" Ticket than he did as a Democrat.


Lieberman didn't go down the line supporting every Democratic piece of the platform, but he was most definitely on the Democratic side of most issues. His positions are actually in lockstep with Clinton's.

The problem right now is that Terry McAuliffe is on the liberal extreme, and candidates who don't agree with those positions are having a pretty tough time getting noticed within the party. The debates were always framed by the liberal issues (like ending free trade and just how much you can raise taxes on the rich before the middle class figures out that they'll wind up paying the increases, too).

Notice how far left Edwards had to shift over the last year in order to get attention. I really wonder how he was getting that "two nations" crapola out of his mouth with a straight face.

[sterlingice]

It sounded more like in answering a direct question, Kerry tried to avoid the issue and bash Bush, while on another occassion his spokeswoman said he supports what Bush is doing regarding enemy combatants.

In other words... a typical Kerry response. :)
Like at least two others before, c'mon, Cam, you're above this, right?

I doubt you'll be posting "three made up words and a divisive 'either you're with us or against America' answer... a typical Bush response" any time soon.

SI

[sterlingice]

Standard Disclaimer: This is not to imply that I will vote for George W. in November. Personally, I think the primary system works to ensure we get the worst possible candidates running for national office. Imagine a Lieberman/McCain election. Now those debates would be worth watching.
Imagine a Lieberman/McCain or McCain/Lieberman ticket...

SI

[Solecismic]

Imagine a Lieberman/McCain or McCain/Lieberman ticket...

SI

The funny thing is, the heads of both parties have been very successful painting these guys as not faithful to their parties.

McCain is without a doubt a Republican and Lieberman is without a doubt a Democrat. The problem for both men is that they refuse to agree with the party heads on every single issue.

They would not work well on the same ticket simply because they have fundamental differences in opinion on major issues. Now, put them both in the same committee, and I bet they have a great chance of working out a bipartisan plan that serves everyone.

[WussGawd]

Lieberman didn't go down the line supporting every Democratic piece of the platform, but he was most definitely on the Democratic side of most issues. His positions are actually in lockstep with Clinton's.

The problem right now is that Terry McAuliffe is on the liberal extreme, and candidates who don't agree with those positions are having a pretty tough time getting noticed within the party. The debates were always framed by the liberal issues (like ending free trade and just how much you can raise taxes on the rich before the middle class figures out that they'll wind up paying the increases, too).

Notice how far left Edwards had to shift over the last year in order to get attention. I really wonder how he was getting that "two nations" crapola out of his mouth with a straight face.

Leiberman's main problem was the same thing that killed Gore in 2000. He was milquetose, and was way too nice a man to match Cheney's vitriol soundbite for soundbite. I have to admit I have some concerns about John Edwards if he were to be added to the 2004 ticket as VP.

Honestly, I think you give way too much credit to McAuliffe for the pull to the left of the party. The silence from the DNC was as deafening as it was from Congress until Dean gained traction in the fall of 2003. As a matter of fact, McAuliffe came pretty close to being replaced after the Dems' dismal showing in the midterm elections, from what I understand. The facts are the moderate wing had just about played out its string with the base by 2000. Gore lost not because he alienated the moderates, but because he alienated the Democratic base by moving to the Clintonesque center (flip flops on the environment for example). Many of them voted for Nader or didn't bother to vote at all.

As for Edwards' rhetoric about Two Americas I don't believe it to be crap-ola. When you consider the state of this economy for the have-nots right now (and I've seen and know some of them), I think Edwards' rhetoric was right on.

I think, ultimately that the Democratic base (which has always been to the left of the Democratic Leadership Council and the Clintons) was reenergized by Dean in a way it hasn't been in 20 years. It's significant that Kerry and Edwards really only began to gain traction with Democratic voters when they made similar moves. If Kerry wins in 2004, he needs to thank his lucky stars for Howard Dean, becauese just 7 or 8 months ago, it looked like the Democrats were going to lose, and lose bad in 2004. Now it's a near dead heat.

As for Edwards, I believe, if he'd run for President in 2000, Edwards would have probably won the nomination. As a matter of fact, he's articulate enough, energetic enough, good enough of a fund raiser, and charismatic enough that if he'd been the VP candidate in 2000 (he was a finalist along with Kerry and Leiberman), it might have been enough to get Gore over the hump.

Unfortunately, in a post 9/11 world, there's a higher priority (and understandably so) on a leader with foreign policy and national security credentials. This is true for all but the most ridiculously naive extreme left of the party. Ultimately, this killed Dean a lot more effectively than the ridiculously overblown Scream (which, having seen the full speech, was exaggerated by the filtering out of background noise, and taken somewhat out of context). Ultimately, it also killed Edwards.

The emphasis on national security is why a lot of Democrats hoped for Wesley Clark to emerge (he didn't, he was a terrible campaigner), and ultimately went for Kerry. It was a lot easier once Kerry began to steal Dean's thunder and speak to the same progressive themes.

[WussGawd]

The funny thing is, the heads of both parties have been very successful painting these guys as not faithful to their parties.

McCain is without a doubt a Republican and Lieberman is without a doubt a Democrat. The problem for both men is that they refuse to agree with the party heads on every single issue.

They would not work well on the same ticket simply because they have fundamental differences in opinion on major issues. Now, put them both in the same committee, and I bet they have a great chance of working out a bipartisan plan that serves everyone.

McCain is anti-choice, pro-individual, a deficit hawk and strong on defense. These are traditional Republican values. He's also fundamentally honest, and has assumed the independent streak that politicians from my homestate traditionally have had (see Goldwater, Barry; Babbitt, Bruce; O'Connor, Sandra Day for other examples). Most of all, I'm quite certain he has a strong dislike of Bush for what Bush did to him in South Carolina in 2000.

I disagree with many of McCain's policies (as I did Goldwater, btw), but I have voted for him at times simply because he's a rarity in Congress, a man with genuine integrity and principles. Weird, I know.

I gave up on Leiberman a month or two ago when he appeared with Bill O'Reilly and basically agreed with O'Reilly as O'Reilly ripped into Kerry for a segment. As far as I'm concerned, anytime the Republicans want him they can have him.

[sterlingice]

The funny thing is, the heads of both parties have been very successful painting these guys as not faithful to their parties.

McCain is without a doubt a Republican and Lieberman is without a doubt a Democrat. The problem for both men is that they refuse to agree with the party heads on every single issue.

They would not work well on the same ticket simply because they have fundamental differences in opinion on major issues. Now, put them both in the same committee, and I bet they have a great chance of working out a bipartisan plan that serves everyone.
Well, that's what makes them attractive to votes who aren't set in voting one party or another. They don't agree completely with their parties and how many in Congress can you really say that about? These days, there are maybe 10 senators and about twice as many Representatives who don't vote with their party on 95% of issues.

I think the idea of a leader who is willing to vote with his own thoughts and ideas is attractive to many Americans because we didn't vote for the party leaders, but they seem to be calling the shots these days. Call it romantic naivete, but I certainly wish a lot more were like that.

SI

[WussGawd]

Well, that's what makes them attractive to votes who aren't set in voting one party or another. They don't agree completely with their parties and how many in Congress can you really say that about? These days, there are maybe 10 senators and about twice as many Representatives who don't vote with their party on 95% of issues.

I think the idea of a leader who is willing to vote with his own thoughts and ideas is attractive to many Americans because we didn't vote for the party leaders, but they seem to be calling the shots these days. Call it romantic naivete, but I certainly wish a lot more were like that.

SI

I believe you are correct here, SI. The trouble is, Leiberman has no appeal to the Democratic base at this point. He lost badly in the primaries even his home region, New England.

McCain, to me, is a little weirder. Honestly, under the right circumstances, I could see him winning the Republican nomination. Many of his stances are smack dab in the middle of much of the Republican Party's professed values. Trouble is, Bush's cronies ran a dirty, dirty campaign against him in 2000, and he will have a hard time shaking off the perception of being damaged goods. Nonetheless, it would not shock me, as long as his health held up, if McCain made another run in 2008, particularly if Dubya loses his reelection bid. Those of course, are two very big "ifs".