History lesson: John Kerry called for commission on "abuses" back in 2004

[beachmom]

Well, this is interesting. I found this via our wonderful forum here, and research we had done. I didn't care for a lot of Kerry's advisors back then, and it is true that they did not want their candidate to make torture a campaign issue (for which Kerry agreed not to do it, of course). Kerry did not bring it up in the debates. So, while I accept some of that criticism of Kerry, he did say some good things at the time, which are detailed in this research thread from here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x47499

And the most revealing things he said were when he was at a town hall meeting, and was asked about Abu Ghraib by a citizen (note that the MSM NEVER asked him about it other than when the scandal came out):

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/26/kerry_faults_bush_rumsfeld_leadership_in_iraq_prison_scandal/

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."

The Bush campaign dismissed the criticism as well as Kerry's call for another investigative panel.

This is extremely interesting. Because he was a presidential candidate, Kerry was privvy to classified information. He addresses "legal interpretations" and "memoranda" -- did he see the torture memos or something like it? I wonder how much he knew back then (for which, of course, he could say nothing publicly, as it was classified), and if he has been carrying around this knowledge for 4 years. I like that when he was "unplugged" and being himself he told that citizen as much as he could and was clearly right when he called for that commission.

[wisteria]

1. Thanks for the refresher course. I think we all know that in may ways, Kerry is way ahead of the

curve.

[karynnj]

2. Thanks for bringing this back from long ago - it is amzaing the wealth of our archives

Your comment here on whether Kerry was briefed is interesting and I like that he went as far as he could in speaking at the town hall. He still is calling for an investigation when asked - but he is not as explicitly calling on President Obama to do so as he was for Bush. (There is a big difference in agreeing that the truth needs to come out when asked and demanding it as he did then. I hope he is making a stronger case behind the scenes with Obama. In Kerry's case, the investigation would have been a campaign promise because of that comment.

This might explain why his comments on the Military Commissions Act bluntly said the Bush administration wants to torture and this bill allows it. The bill did give the President the right to define torture - which many said, but Kerry's comment was among the strongest.

[YvonneCa]

3. My recollection is that he always said as much truth as...

...was possible, given his situation. As a candidate, that was limited by many things (national security and politics, for two) but it seemed he did know facts he wasn't able (or willing) to share. I think he knows much and, like you said, has carried it around for years.

The 'unplugged' person I saw AFTER November, 2004 always answered thoughtfully, and chose words that could not be misconstrued to affect national security. In the Q and A session after the Georgetown speech he was pretty open...same thing I saw at Pepperdine, both during Q and A and with the Young Democrats later.

[TayTay]

4. What do you want a truth commission to do?

Out of curiosity, what is the desire end of this for people here? What do you want to get out of the pursuit of allegations that the US tortured prisoners against it's sworn agreement not to?

Where do you see this ending? Does it end in a courtroom? What will that mean?

I am just curious. I don't see this ending in a courtroom and I see the hearing on the abuse of war powers as being in a straight line with the uproar over the US using torture. I don't think any courtroom can supply the kind of meaningful justice people want.

The system itself is rotten to the core. The abuse of power is what is rotting us. The cure is a systematic cleaning of house and an attempt to put the Constitutional restrictions of power back into place.

A truth commission is a nice idea and a good start. But without an end result, a goal, it means nothing. The entire debate on the misuse of power, of which torture is but a symptom, means nothing.

[beachmom]

6. I guess I am not understanding you here.

I watched that hearing on war powers, and frankly, if we did what Baker/Christopher wanted, there would be no effect whatsoever. Why? Because we already had a gang in Congress be told (maybe not "consulted", but in practice I have no idea how that would be differentiated) that we were torturing people. We don't know what was said or precisely what they were told. Let's say a Democrat said this was immoral and illegal, and they objected to it (didn't Jane Harmon do just that? Register her objections?). That did absolutely zero to stop it, because it was all classified. A member of Congress would have to literally break the law and risk jail time by blowing the whistle on this. That is asking a hell of a lot from them.

Frankly, the only thing we've got here is shame. Shame is the only thing that can make this country right again. So investigation and truth will help. I want the people involved to be ostracized in our society forever and always. In HISTORY, which is what George W. Bush was always most worried about. I want his legacy to be the President that shamed our country by putting us into the torture business. As far as prosecutions are concerned, the Establishment has spoken. As if Eric Holder is going to go against the entire DC Establishment. That is asking too much of him, and is not fair.

It is possible that the shame will change people's opinions, and they will want prosecutions. But I think that it will take too much time for people to change. Especially, after seeing a poll where people who went to church the most thought torture was justified the most. What a sad, sad thing to know about my fellow Americans. That being a good Christian means being for torture.

Edit: actually, I also would like an affirmation from this country (not just the Obama Administration but the minority in Congress) that we would like to continue to be signers to the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. Because, if the answer is "yes", then it needs to be known broadly that since we adopted these treaties, they are U.S. law. Which means we are OBLIGATED to prosecute those who broke the law. Does the rule of law mean anything these days?

[beachmom]

8. They plan on torturing again, of course. It won't be stopped without prosecutions.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/4/727708/-Torture-may-be-necessary-in-the-future#c41

Sorry, this is my conclusion.

[ProSense]

5. Not Kerry related, but

interesting commentaries on investigating torture

[YvonneCa]

7. Bill Moyers Journal last night was about...

...this. His guest were Bruce Fein and Mark Danner. The discussion pursues some of the issues we have discussed here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05012009/watch.html

Worth thinking about...

[beachmom]

9. Well, this is depressing:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/polling-the-torture-debate.html

New poll data out of CNN suggests that most Americans believe the harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA interrogators was torture but are far more divided about whether or not they approve or disapprove of those techniques.

Six in ten Americans said that the use of "harsh interrogation procedures" including waterboarding is torture -- with the numbers, not surprisingly, highest among self identifying Democrats (75 percent) and lowest among Republicans (44 percent). Fifty-eight percent of independents believe the interrogation practices amounted to torture.

But, when asked whether they approve or disapprove of the use of these techniques, the American public is FAR more divided with 50 percent approving and 46 percent disapproving. Again, the numbers are split down ideological lines with nearly eight in ten Republicans approving and just more than one in four Democrats feeling the same way. Independents break slightly in favor of the use of these methods with 53 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving.

These numbers, which are consistent with data in the Washington Post/ABC News poll released late last month, point to one simple conclusion: Americans believe that what we did to suspected terrorists was torture but also -- narrowly -- believe that it was the right thing to do.

Those twin observations go a long way to explaining why President Barack Obama and his Administration have expressed very little interest in prosecuting those involved with the interrogations despite urgings from the liberal wing of the party to do just that. (The CNN poll shows that 57 percent of people oppose the prosecution of Bush Administration officials for their roles in the interrogations and an even higher number -- 65 percent -- believe that no prosecutions of military and intelligence officials should take place.)

Chris says this is why the White House will not endorse a truth commission or any kind of prosecution. Sigh. It's easier to blame the politicians than to realize that it is the citizens of this country that are now stopping us to go forward on this.

Not sure how one would persuade them otherwise. I have noticed that Hollywood has a really demented view on torture. Everyone points out "24", but if you actually start watching movies and paying attention there are patterns:

1. When bad guys torture, they NEVER get the information from the hero.
2. When good guys torture, they ALWAYS get the information from the villain.
3. The only other common scenario is that the hero gives a FALSE confession.

There are exceptions: "In the Name of the Father" is a great film about The Birmingham Six. It shows that sleep deprivation is torture. And how it along with verbal threats of killing a family member elicited false confessions of 6 innocent people. Of course, that was a TRUE STORY.

Maybe a campaign against Hollywood's use of torture in action films (that it is EVER a good thing) would be worthwhile. Because if we don't change people's minds about torture, its immorality and illegality, it is asking an awful lot of politicians to jump in front of the people.

[YvonneCa]

10. I agree. It IS depressing, but not surprising. I guess the last...

...eight years has made me a bit cynical, but it's this same group of Americans (and I do think they deserve the same respect as all Americans) that thought GWB was a good idea. TWICE. And they were wrong.

And they are wrong about this, too, IMHO. And their 'wrong-headedness' is hurting the country. Can you just imagine if they had succeeded in electing Sarah Palin??? :scared:

I do have a different opinion about one thing you said: "...it is asking an awful lot of politicians to jump in front of the people." It may be asking a lot, but that's too bad...we have to ask them anyway. And they have a duty to get out in front, especially when the future of the country is at stake. That's what Kerry (and many others) have been doing...jump out front and EDUCATE the people. But, just like in electing Obama, it will take ALL of us to get this done. JMHO. ;)

[beachmom]

11. Politicians, including Kerry, don't go in front of the people.

Even the Iraq timetable was about Kerry leading in WASHINGTON; the people were for the timetable by summer 2006. They just needed to hear a plan that made sense. Kerry provided it. DC eventually followed.

As you could see in the poll, Democrats think torture is wrong. Republicans think it is right. Independents with a lesser majority also think it is right. Democrats like Kerry and Obama are playing a balancing act -- they are placating the Dem base by saying we will not torture and that it is wrong. They are placating the larger coalition that elected Obama by saying there will not be prosecutions, or just being vague about it. That is as far as they can take it. The politicians more out front can do so because their state's polls show that it is doable (like Whitehouse in Rhode Island). Kerry is a national Dem and is more conservative than his state, in my view.

Battles are often waged outside of the political realm. Look at gay marriage. Kerry and Obama don't favor it. Yet it is gaining more and more support notably in New England, because people have become convinced by gay activists and just observing it that it is no big deal, and heck, let them get married. But to be clear, national Democrats did NOT go in front of the people.

[TayTay]

12. I will never understand why some people think MA is the liberal oasis

It most decidedly is not. It is a state with very strong libertarian instincts which many people mistake for liberal instincts. These are not the same thing. Gay marriage is approved in MA because it is seen as limiting governments ability to interfere in the lives of citizens. MA voters, and a lot of New England voters in general, are not voicing support for big government programs when they tell the government to back off and stop treating gay and straight marriage as separate.

This issue never gained popularity because MA is gay-friendly or liberal. This state is not that much different from any other state when it comes to to attitudes to gays or any other group. Do not mistake mere tolerance for acceptance or inclusion, they are not the same thing.

I am continually amazed by people who think Sen. Kerry is more conservative than the voters that elected him. This is untrue and a shallow reading of the MA electorate. (Anyone else notice that one of the most racist screeds against Mexicans in the recent Swine Flu outbreak came from RW radio in Boston?) It is not easier for a John Kerry in MA than it is for pols in other places. That is a copout and a denigration of both Kerry and the voters in this state who have to work for every little program or advancement as hard as anyone else in any other state. This is not a "liberal" state, that is a complete misnomer.

Recent poll findings for WHDH done by http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/mass_poll_obama.html">Suffolk University:

However, the news isn't all good for Obama, who deals with a struggling economy. Despite overall approval of his economic policies, there are concerns about the types of steps the government has taken:

• 41 percent said big government was the biggest threat to the country in the future, compared to big business (28 percent) or big labor (15 percent)
• 54 percent would rather have a smaller government providing fewer services
• 61 percent disapprove of monetary packages for banks, financial institutions and auto companies

"Voters acknowledge that stimulus packages and bigger government are a necessary economic fix for the short term, even though they disapprove,” said Paleologos. “But if Barack Obama's administration calls for bigger government and stimulus solutions for all problems, his favorability may decline in the long term."

Further, 69 percent of voters said they believe that the standard of living for the next generation will be the same or worse, while 27 percent said it will be somewhat or much better.

[beachmom]

13. I am talking about torture.

Not sure if there is a breakout but I can imagine Georgia being decidedly much more pro-torture than Massachusetts.

At least in the national polls Democrats were against torture by a large margin. Republicans were for torure by a large margin. Independents supported it but by a lesser percentage. Stir up that stew in Mass., and you have a pol who can say torture is wrong, and be in line with his people. But not an overwhelmingly anti-torture sentiment (given Mass.'s high Independent voter status). Therefore, no prosecutions.

Hate to be cynical, but that is how I read the poll. Kerry followed the polls in 2004. That is a fact.

P.S. I am not going to re-fight the gay marriage war here. But Ted Kennedy backs gay marriage. Explain that.

[TayTay]

15. Sen. Kerry is to the left of the MA electorate on this

He has been more on the left of this issue than the electorate all along. (He was going back to the early 1970's. That is why what he did back then was courageous in the first place.)

I think there is a difference between the theory of politics and it's actuality that many people have trouble with. Ok, that is understandable. Our "reach" will always exceed our "grasp" on issues, that is why we are a progressive, or ever moving forward movement. There will never be a moment in which we are in the zeitgeist, that would not, by definition, be moving forward. Perhaps the cycnicism comes from that?

Look at the health care debate: there are concessions on the table from the Health Care Industry that people have been fighting for for 40+ years. We are on the verge of eliminating pre-existing conditions, gender based cost differentials and other things that have made our system so unfair. There are those who would throw all this overboard because "it's not single-payor." I think that's wrong.

MA is also full of people who think that torture is regretable but necessary. That view held in prior wars and it holds now. Perhaps there is a difference between the views of academics who never actually served in a war versus those who actually had to carry out the orders. There is a vast difference between these views. Some of the rank and file believe that those who never fought have a skewed view of war and what happens in it that is unrealistic. There are also those who feel that the academic concern for "right and wrong" in a time of war is misplaced and calculcated to blame the field soldiers. This was true in Vietnam and unless we are careful, it will be true now. You can't divorce the issue of torture into an academic discussion that ignores the field soldiers. Nor you can say that this argument should not involve issues like blame. This becomes a reason why the military thinks liberals and Dems abandon them and look down on them. (Town and gown conflicts are real and affect perceptions here.)

[beachmom]

16. We are long past a discussion of the torturers being prosecuted.

Now it seems we are reaching for the crumbs -- that maybe some hack lawyers could be at least disbarred. And I think there is a huge difference between a war atrocity, that occurred during the fog of war and armed conflict, and after someone has been taken prisoner and is no longer a threat. I thought we had standards on that. Obviously, you can get too academic on the issue -- I have offered leeway, that someone can lose their temper and knock a prisoner around. That is not what happened. This was orders given that were clearly against the law. And they did weird things, like nudity. That was codified. And the American people by a small margin are OKAY with that.

Yes, agreed that Kerry has been excellent on gay rights and was well before it became in vogue among the latte set. But on gay marriage, there were others who stuck their neck out more.

As far as liberal vs. conservative, well, then, I can easily point to the fact that Georgia is not as conservative as it looks. In the end, it comes down to the football team -- GA votes the red team and MA votes the blue team. But it is a balancing act. The Christian conservatives who vote R in the rural areas don't want their social security taken away. But OTOH, I don't see them ever voting Dem because of cultural reasons. I think you don't fully grasp how One Party Massachusetts is. Frankly, life in VA was more balanced. Either party had a shot. For GA and MA it is much harder for an encumbent to lose. That's terrible, but it also means a pol can stick his neck out more without getting burned. Or they can be corrupt, fat and happy like Saxby Chambliss. JK is a guy who is more the former. I like to push him to do more. But that's just me.

[TayTay]

17. But we are talking apples and oranges then

There are legal prosecutions that are not popular at the time they are done.

Prosecuting people for acting in what they thought was defense of their country has never been popular and it never will be. It is not popular in MA either.

A politician is not a judge or a lawyer. He or she is a practitioner of the Dark Arts of compromise and legislation. A politician navigates the waters of popular opinion. That is the job description. A legislator is supposed to mirror his or her constituents to a real degree. (Otherwise, why hold elections? Politicians reflect the views of the population who elected them, they are not above those views or beneath them. Politicians represent the people in their home states or districts.)

Lawyers and advocates can pursue single issues. That is the outer pressure they put on politicians. The politicians are right to listen to their constituents and weigh their views on any issue. That is why representatives exist, to represent the view of the people. There is no purity group that exist above the law and above politics and public opinion. I sometimes think that what is being mourned here is the the practice of politics itself, which is an exercise in compromise, in finding common ground that wholly pleases no one yet, when done right, is indeed representative.

[karynnj]

14. I agree with you here on everthing except the timeline on Iraq

When Kerry first pushed for the deadline (actually 2 deadlines) on April 1, 2006 in the NYT op-ed, this was a minority position. It was not even close to 50% in any poll that offered several alternatives. This is a case where Kerry actually did lead public opinion and withstood a huge amount of flack to do so. (Remember that Obama and Clinton didn't go to this position until about 9 months later.)

On investigation of torture, Kerry has gone beyond Obama. He did follow Obama on not prosecuting agents, though he narrowly confined that to those that stayed completely within the legal framework they were given. I know that you are right that this is NOT the standard we imposed on Germans. There, I suspect it is empathy - even if misplaced - for the lower level people, who trusted their government and did things they now have to live with. I don't see this as liberal or conservative.

On gay marriage, Kerry has moved a considerable distance. He is not a leader on this - and I would really not expect him to be one. This is an issue where there has been rapid change in the last 40 years. In the 1960s, just coming out of the closet was a big deal. These changes are wonderful and needed. The biggest determinant of people's position on this is not political leaning, but age. People coming of age now have grown up with friends who were openly gay and often know older relatives or family friends where that was an unquestioned given. This was not true for those of us coming of age in the 1960s - and the late 60s were extremely different than the early 60s.

Where Kerry was a leader on gay issues, it was in the 1980s where he was an early advocate for equal rights. He still is motivated to take on some advocacy for that reason. In addition, his position of civil unions with FULL federal rights in 2004 was more than any previous nominee had as a position. He was clearer and stronger on that than the significantly younger, non-Catholic Obama, whose church allows gay marriage. There was some risk in 2004 in the position Kerry took. By 2008, there was none in Obama taking the same position as the country had moved on this.

A 2004 Online News Hour (Jim Lehrer) had this:

In the Senate, Kerry has supported the expansion of rights for gay couples. He cosponsored the Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2003 that would allow gays from another country who are in a committed relationship with a U.S. citizen to immigrate to the United States under the same conditions as someone married to an American. He also cosponsored a 2003 bill that would entitle domestic partners of federal employees to the benefits available to those who are married to federal employees.

He also, per Bay Window, lobbied behind the scenes to get a needed vote to prevent a referendum that could have ended the right to gay marriage in MA. The source was the state Senator who attributed his change in position to a call from Kerry. It would be good if strongly stated words accompanied the action - but this is a case where actions speak louder than words. In 2008 - in response to Blue Mass's Cambridge Paul he said that he was not against MA's gay marriage - though it was convoluted. In terms of MA, he is nowhere near leading on this, but at the national level - and the Senate is a national body - he is one of the leaders.

When we all went to Take back America, the best session was with Roy Wilkins, Jesse Jackson and a biographer of MLK. One take away was that African American civil rights needed both the energy of the protest movement and the quieter inside government writing of law that would make the changes. Without the energy and vision of the activists making equal rights an issue. I think it is completely normal that it was the activists in MA and elsewhere that first pushed this change. It is very unusual when a politician does. In the 1960s, JFK and LBJ were way behind the activists - yet they deserve credit for moving when they did.