John Kerry speaks on torture

[nam78_two]

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4314


“We’ve got to tell the truth about what’s happening right now – right now – in our country. We must start treating our moral authority as a national treasure that doesn’t limit our power but magnifies our influence. That seems obvious, but this Administration still doesn’t get it. Still. Right now – today — they are trying to rush a bill through Congress that will fundamentally undermine our moral authority, put our troops at greater risk, and make our country less safe.

Let me be clear about something—something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. It gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. No matter how much well-intended United States Senators would like to believe otherwise, it gives an Administration that lobbied for torture just what it wanted.

The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President. But we have seen in Iraq the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration. No, we cannot just accept the word of this Administration that they will not engage in torture given that everything they’ve already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror.”

[yellerpup]

1. Kerry calls it what it is

Torture diminishes us all and no one in the B*** administration gets it. K&R:kick:

[wisteria]

2. Yes, it reduces us to the likes of Hitler and Mussolini.

You know with President Bush being the all powerful deciding factor, it will be used to its most cruel and inhuman levels.
Tell me, what is to stop him from arresting those of us who challenge him on this war. They already claim we are aiding the terrorists. We could possibly be locked up without due process indefinitely for aiding the terrorists. It may sound far fetched, but in Bush's America anything is possible. If you would have told me six years ago, we would be in the mess we are in now, I would of said you were crazy. Sadly, this isn't funny or crazy anymore-it's scary.

[kestrel91316]

4. Most important takehome point today:

"What is to stop him from arresting those of us who challenge him on this war? They already claim we are aiding the terrorists........"

You know what is next. They will have the right to declare anyone who verbally opposes the regime a terrorist, too. They will have the right to disappear any or all of us.

Mark my words. They will come for US.

(not that it will slow me down one bit..)

[yellerpup]

11. I don't see any humor in it either.

I can't believe it but it is happening anyway whether I believe it or not. If we can't stop him now, at THIS election, it will only get worse before it gets worse. Time to impeach the traitors who occupy the WH. If we don't, they will kill us.

[davidwparker]

3. Sounds good. Is he leading a filibuster. All such wonder speeches.

Any filibusters?

A caller to Thom Hartmann said she called Kerry's office and there was some trading to not have a cloture vote and therefore no chance to filibuster.

[me b zola]

5. How do they avoid the vote for cloture?

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. From my understanding... the Dem leadership (eg, Reid)

Traded a cloture vote for the opportunity to vote on amendments to the bill in the hopes of changing some of the most odious parts. In theory, there was a better chance of finding the votes for these amendments than finding enough votes for a filibuster, which is Reid's logic, I think.

Not saying I agree with said logic, but there you have it, as I understand it...

[sandnsea]

8. So there's just no cloture vote at all then

Straight to the upperdown, is that it? I'd seen BLM post that earlier, but it just sort of sunk in. What an idiotic thing for him to do - unless he was tryng to stop a filibuster because of the election.

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. I have a feeling Reid didn't ever want a filibuster

I think he highly resented the last filibuster in January and wanted to keep any "renegade" Senators from upstaging him again (read: Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy).

I have no proof of this... so I'll try to reserve judgment... but in my book Harry Reid is thisclose to officially being a pro-torture traitor to the Republic.

[onenote]

10. well, no one else must've wanted it either

since any Senator could've objected to the Unanimous COnsent motion that apparently traded cloture for votes on amendments. Any one. And none did.

[WildEyedLiberal]

13. Point being:

Apparently Reid already sold them out on the issue. Even if a Senator did want to filibuster this - let's say Kennedy for example - he could NOT do so without 40 OTHER Senators willing to vote no for cloture.

Now, with Reid making deals to take filibuster off the table, do you think the Liebermans, the Landrieus, the Nelsons of the caucus are going to vote no to cloture? Of course not. Once Reid made his deal, it was over. And everyone knew it.

[onenote]

14. Any Senator could've blocked the UC

There could be no "deal" by Reid unless every Senator accepted it. Every single one of them. THis can't be pinned solely on Reid. Every Democratic Senator shares responsibility.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Fine, if you insist on playing the blame game, have it your way

It would have been pointless to stage a filibuster knowing FULL AND GODDAMN WELL that it would fail. Maybe it would have made some people here feel good, but in the end the same exact result will be achieved - the torture bill will come up for a vote. The only hope now is finding 6 Republicans willing to vote against torture. That is what would have happened with or without a cloture vote, because in all brutal honesty there aren't 41 people in the US Senate with enough integrity to stall a bill that legalizes torture. It may be depressing but it's a fact.

[onenote]

16. actually, I'm not playing the "blame game"

Given that every Democrat accepted the UC strategy, I'm not suggesting it was the wrong approach. What I'm suggesting is that those who think it was and want to pin the blame on Reid have to acknowledge that it was not something he could accomplish on his own. Every Senator had to support it.

[davidwparker]

7. Hartman had that question too and is checking. That's what the

caller said. I'll listen tomorrow to see what he finds.

So, which senator is even making an attempt to filibuster?

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. It's not like that, is the point

It's not a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where one guy can stand up and stall debate. It's a cloture vote and it is not possible with less than 41 Senators. It appears that Reid has already taken that option off the table, which means that the usual suspects - Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson - have no incentive to join a filibuster. Without 41 votes, no filibuster, period. I blame Reid for not breaking kneecaps to achieve that number. It's HIS job, dammit - what the hell else is a LEADER supposed to do besides LEAD?

[davidwparker]

17. Okay. It came down to 51-48 which I saw in another thread.

I suppose this is just the game some Dems want to play. Now they can campaign that they voted against it, but really, they didn't when all is said and done. If it is in their power to filibuster and they chose not too follow that path, then they might as well had voted Yes.

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them like that though

There were several Democrats who voted against the Alito filibuster but also against Alito himself. I agree it is pointless - if they truly opposed Alito, they should have filibustered him. The same thing is going on here: some will vote no for the torture bill but would not have voted for a filibuster. I agree with you, it is the equivalent of a yes vote and is highly disappointing to say the least.