Senator Kerry being interviewed on Hardball now! 4pmCT,

[babylonsister]

repeat at 6pmCT.

[beachmom]

1. I am taping the 7 PM broadcast and will comment then

I thought I heard something I didn't like, but I'll wait until I'm not caring for my kids and making dinner at the same time, while trying to half listen :).

[babylonsister]

3. I'm glad he did; he discounted torture, period, bring back the

Geneva Conventions and abide by them.

[Mass]

6. What did he say exactly? Somebody on GD says he supported

Bush's bill. I have not seen it, so I cannot answer.

This is surprising become it comes in a thread where all the other bloggers say he was wonderful.

[babylonsister]

7. Exactly? Obviously not verbatim, but Senator Kerry

said torture is not an option, period. Mentioned that no prez ever condoned it until this one.

[Mass]

8. Thanks. I guess this is another idiot on GD who could not be bothered

listening what Kerry said.

[beachmom]

9. Question to be answered:

Does Sen. Kerry think waterboarding is torture. I didn't hear it all, but I thought he was saying something like -- well put it in the bill and don't lie about it. For me -- NOT good enough. Plain and simple, waterboarding IS torture. Everyone should listen and say what they think. We're not Kerrybots, and if I don't agree with his position I will say so.

[babylonsister]

11. I didn't take his comments to mean he'd support waterboarding,

but perhaps I misread him. Hopefully someone who watches the repeat will weigh in.
But I agree, beachmom, no torture should be tolerated.

[karynnj]

14. I took it to mean that they would be willing to write the rules

on what can be done specificly. The slight confusiion came because the hyperactive Matthews was asking multiple questions. It sounded like Kerry's response to waterboarding was that he didn't want to go down a list - saying what was or wasn't ok. Matthews then switched to whether Congress should decide it. Kerry said it was symptomatic of the failure of the Bush adminisstration that Congress had to do it. He then answered was that he was ok with Congress writing clear rules - or something to that effect.

All of this was after at least 2 or 3 statements that you absolutely do not torture and the statement that we follow the GC, not just to be nice, but to protect our soldiers. It was a pretty strong statement.

[MH1]

16. I took his comments as "I don't want to go down the laundry list"

I think I would have preferred that he'd been emphatic about waterboarding, but if he had, Matthews would have just said, well what about ----, and so on. Kerry didn't want to play that game.

That's how I took his response. I can't say I disagree, and based on his other answers I think he would not support "waterboarding" as an appropriate method of interogation.

[karynnj]

20. I got that impression from the look on his face - it was clear he reacted

when Matthews said something about the subject thinking he was going to drown. It may also violate the Geneva Conventions. (I think that was said at the time of the Gonzales hearing.)

[karynnj]

10. That makes sense -

Kerry has spoken against torture and for the Geneva Conventions for a mere 35 years. Even if the issue weren't so important to him, it would be one MASSIVE flip flop. Look at all the anti-torture comments that Beachmom unearthed. (He also mentioned it when he voted against Gonzales) For someone who sees a place for international law, how would it make sense to make a law saying we could violate it. (He was the one with the amendment to get info on the secret prisons.

[ginnyinWI]

13. that probably came from when he said

that he welcomes examining the activity that has been ruled illegal and working to make it legal. But I didn't take it to mean that meant just signing everything * wants into law. It means "let's get everything out on the table".

[wisteria]

2. Thanks, will watch at 6 PM. n/t

[Blaukraut]

4. It was a very good interview

Matthews was asking good questions, and let John Kerry answer them fully without interrupting. JK reiterating the fact that Bush's recent speeches are campaign speeches.

[_dynamicdems]

5. I caught the last of it.

I love the interviews in his Senate office. The light is more natural and his tan really shows up. His words were forceful and he came off very strong and very much in control. Tweety looked older than Kerry and very pasty.

His words were powerful and his delivery was perfect. I can't wait to watch the entire interview later.

[ginnyinWI]

12. Superb!

It's especially fun to get to see JK as a surprise. :loveya:

He's smart, well-informed and on top of the issues of detainees, torture, and of course Iraq. And no, it didn't sound one bit as if he's in favor of any sort of torture. Because it doesn't work, and hurts our own troops and credibility in the world.

And I was glad to see him deconstruct the GOP's political strategies when they trot out * and put terrorism on the front burner as they're doing. We need more of this--expose their little games, then tell the truth, and the people will decide!

[MH1]

15. Video is up at MSNBC

Requires you use - ugh - IE

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Does MSNBC usually posts transcripts?

[globalvillage]

17. Don't know. I'd like to read it, though.

Here's what I got on the torture question.

CM: What do you think is appropriate torture?
JK: There is no appropriate torture. Period. We've been arguing that for a long time. They have been arguing to be allowed to torture. This is the first administration in American history the vice president of the united states says we should be allowed to torture. They argue for torture, for a loophole that allowed them to do it. Now the president stands up and says the United States doesn't torture. Well, I think they have ignored the fact that the Geneva Conventions were not put in place because we're nice, they're not in place to be soft. They're put in place to support and defend the interests of our troops in the battlefield so that if young Americans are captured, we know we've done the best to be able to have them treated properly.
CM: The president, maybe it's a matter of wording, the president says he's using tough interrogation techniques. How do you read that?
JK: There are techniques which are legitimate under military practices. This is not softball. It's war. It's tough, and the fact is that there are tough situations.
CM: Is waterboarding in or out?
JK: There are things that are short of torture. (This is clearly a continuation of the previous answer, and not an answer to the waterboarding question).
CM: How about water boarding make a guy think he's drowning.
JK: If we start going down.
CM: But isn't that what he's asking you to do in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, to basically legislate what's in and what's out? In terms of how we treat prisoners in terms of.
JK: Well, if they want us to do every single particular practice we can do that. We can write the manual for them and we're happy to do it. Shows again the ineffectiveness of this administration that they're unwilling ot do that in keeping with American values. Happy to do it. Bottom line is we need to prosecute these people, bring them to justice. We need to be tough in the world. I think what's happened is that this administration has lost that toughness in a real sense because they're more rhetorical than they are substance in their ability to be...ability to do things. Other countries won't follow them. Other countries don't listen to them. Other countries don't support them. They've divided the world.

edited once for spelling, and once to add

:loveya: :patriot:

[beachmom]

18. Okay, I watched it without interruption

I agree with the posters above that he was NOT going to answer the waterboarding question, and instead said that they would specify what is acceptable treatment of prisoners in the bill.

Perhaps for political and strategic reasons that was the right way to go about it, but I can tell you that human rights groups say waterboarding is torture, and I wish John Kerry had gone on record saying it was torture. It would be nice to know without a doubt that as president he would not authorize the use of waterboarding as an acceptable interrogation method. He did not answer that today. And his answer could be used by * if the press ever gets the spine to ask him the same exact question -- Mr. President, is waterboarding torture? He would probably also dodge the question, and I guess that's what bugs me about Sen. Kerry's answer.

This is not fatal, but I do think that Kerry needs to decide what he's going to say about what he thinks is torture and what he doesn't. This will become more and more important, and will show moral clarity. He's opening himself up for the same types of criticism by Joe Klein, et al IMO, so he needs to be very clear about this.

[karynnj]

19. I think he cut it off because it would

have led to Matthews naming action after action. There were other issues - mainly national security he wanted to address. This was more likely Kerry simply taking control of the interview. Has anyone come out with a stronger comment on torture and the Geneva Conventions?

I think the phrase "come clean" implies he has done something wrong on this. I think the comparison to Bush is unfair - he actually HAD torture done in his name. The problem with saying answering "no" on waterboarding is that Kerry would have lost control of the interview. I saw moral clarity in Kerry's inital answer. Kerry will have to take a clear position when the Senate comes up with a list - his vote will put him on record that he either accepts or rejects the list.

[beachmom]

21. Of course, Bush is the torturer in chief

But if Kerry doesn't answer that question some time, then it's like Bush can throw it on him -- like lookie, even the liberal senator from Mass. won't rule it out. See what I mean? I'm not comparing Kerry to Bush in action, just in an answer to a question (sorry if that wasn't clear).

Yeah, strategically you are correct about controlling the interview, but I just felt dodging the waterboarding question undercut his moral clarity in his first very powerful statement about torture and the Geneva conventions. Going back to Bush, he's always saying "we don't torture", while he IS torturing by using many horrible methods like waterboarding. So if Kerry says torture is wrong, but then won't throw waterboarding in in that category, then how is he nailing Bush on the issue?

Maybe there's a reason to keep waterboarding an option, but I think it's immoral. I'm not like the whiners in GD, who let one thing make them reject the person, but I wanted MORE moral clarity, not just on that torture is wrong but what it is, since Bush has repeatedly lied and been very nuanced (yes, that dirty word) on what torture is.

It's in the details is what I'm saying.

Edited to add: you are right about my phrase "come clean", so I edited my first post to say "be clear". The original phrase implies he did something wrong which he hasn't. I just want him to be very clear.

[ProSense]

23. Cutting off Tweety and

controlling the discussion cannot possibly "undercut his moral clarity." Senator Kerry has made many consistent statements about torture and one instance of avoiding a media trap cannot possibly negate his position. I don't agree that would have been his first powerful statement on torture. There is plenty to pin on Bush, who only has lies to fall back on to cover his many past, possibly criminal, deceptions.

This is a very clear cut issue: The US does not torture or condone torture:

Also sounding alarms on Bush's legislation Thursday were the Pentagon's top uniformed lawyers. Testifying before a House panel, the service's judge advocate generals said the plan could violate treaty obligations and make U.S. troops vulnerable.

"While we seek that balance" of fairness and security, "we also must remember the concept of reciprocity," said Brig. Gen. James Walker, staff judge advocate for the Marine Corps. "What we do and how we treat these individuals can, in the future, have a direct impact on our service men and women overseas. "

The president's legislation would authorize the defense secretary to convene military tribunals to prosecute terrorism suspects and omit rights common in military and civil courts, such as the defendant's right to access all evidence and a ban on coerced testimony. Bush has said the plan is both fair and tough enough to ensure dangerous terrorists can be brought to justice.

Snip...

But the service's top lawyers reiterated their position that other alternatives must be explored — or the case dropped.

"I believe the accused should see that evidence," said Maj. Gen. Scott Black, the Army's judge advocate general.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_on_go_co/detainees_legislation_9

Bush's entire speech was a lie:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2816379&mesg_id=2816379


Bush, not a single terrorist, is the one that lowered this country into into a debate about how much torture is acceptable. The answer is America does not condone torture, of any kind.

[beachmom]

24. And you state the problem perfectly -- Bush is LYING

He says "We don't torture". When I put "torture" in quotes I am talking about Bush's meaning to the word "torture". To him "torture" is right at the moment when organs begin to fail. Anything prior to that is not "torture". That is NOT what cruel and unusual punishment set forth in the Geneva Conventions is.

So Kerry says in no uncertain terms that we don't condone torture. But the MSM and quite frankly the American people are thoroughly confused as to what the HELL is the meaning of the word anymore, it's been so twisted by Bush/Cheney. So in order for Kerry to prove that when he says we don't torture, he doesn't simply mean "torture" -- well, tell me how we are to know in this era? How will his words not get twisted once more by those lying pundits who look every second to pounce on him?

A simple "yes, waterboarding is torture, but I'm not going to go down a long and lengthy laundry list now" doesn't seem so hard an answer, and it would put him right back on track. Unless . . . he thinks waterboarding is appropriate in certain extenuating circumstances like the #2 Al Qaeda man who may have pertinent information of future attacks. He did say this is not softball this is war. I'm sitting here not knowing for sure -- this is how I feel, and it's the truth.

[karynnj]

30. I see what you are saying about the meaning or

distorted meanings of words. There are two issues:

1) How will others interpret Kerry's words? Here you may have a point, though the many time Kerry has used words such as immoral or even the first statement here - or the Oct statement they issued to the WP are STRONGER than any comments even from McCain.

2) The other issue is what would a President Kerry do? - This is easier. The son is father to the man. Consider those things that Kerry determined to be wrong and immoral in Vietnam. They went to the letter and the spirit of international law. Speaking of these things before the nation couldn't have been easy - especially as he wanted to be a politician.

I can see how what you said would have worked - but if you remember Matthews at that point was speaking over him - after Kerry pushed back, the whole rhythm of the interview slowed to a more comfortable and pleasant pace.

[Democrafty]

25. I absolutely agree.

A disastrous and morally bankrupt Republican policy does not entitle us to demand that certain words come out of Senator Kerry's mouth. It's more important, at this point, to make sure the torture legislation is clear and humane, and to make sure our elected officials know the American people are not behind this.

[beachmom]

27. Okay -- so when is a good time for us to find out?

In 2007? Bush is a lame duck president and he's evil. So maybe you're right that all pressure should be on him right now for the '06 elections and all. But Bush is torturing people right now, and torture better NOT be authorized in that bill, and waterboarding falls under the category of torture. If it's in there, then I do hope Sen. Kerry votes against it. It was not clear from his answers today that he agrees with me.

[Democrafty]

29. I dunno, is 2007 when WE get to decide when we find out this stuff?

It's not that I don't take your points, but what happens if there is torture in the bill? What if Senator Kerry doesn't agree with you? The fact is, railing against things that are totally beyond our control just leads to anger and frustration.

Seriously, if you have an issue with something JK said or didn't say, call his office, or write him a letter. But at least be prepared to accept that you might not be satisfied with what he says all the time.

[karynnj]

31. Will we find out what is in the bill?

I assume Kerry will be involved in trying to push that nothing inhumane ( where I would put waterboarding) be included. For the Democrats, the best solution is if they with Graham, Warner and McCain - if possible, can get rules consistent with international law and (as Kerry said) American values. The worst scenario is the "best" unacceptable package, because it would be easier to convince the country that a really bad package was unacceptable.

[beachmom]

22. Sorry -- I failed to read your response completely

My little nit pick here may dissipate in a couple of weeks with the vote, as well as what he says on the Senate floor. But I need to hear him rule out waterboarding. Do we have him on record saying waterboarding is wrong and unacceptable? If not, I want that on record. That's pretty important to me, because they used waterboarding on that #2 al Qaeda guy -- it's a fact. So how does Sen. Kerry feel about that? Would he as president authorize that? I think these are very important questions.

[kttmmom]

26. Just watched the video

and, taking the interview in its entirety, I was not left with any impression that JK would support waterboarding. I thought this was one of the strongest TV interviews he's done since the election - he seems so liberated, confident and direct and has the strength of his convictions. He knows he was right all along.

[karynnj]

28. perhaps he didn't want to show his cards

before the Senators put together a list. In answering, he would have defined what he thinks is the worst acceptable. Those more amenable to torture could take that as an opening position. (He didn't look comfortable when Matthews spoke of waterboarding though - also if it's been declared torture as defined under the Geneva Conventions, I would assume he would be against it.)

Emotionally, I would have been happy with him saying that he would consider that torture. But, what if Matthews then said what about "X" - at whatever point Kerry cut him off, they would ask why he was unwilling to rule out "X". I haven't seen anyone ask McCain, Clinton, Biden etc even if they reject torture.

Kerry was NOT weaker on this than anyone else - he was stronger in 2003-2004 when it came out and incredibly strong in 1971. His basic comment here was again very strong. It rejected that any cause was sufficient to torture people. I think you are reacting to Klein and Sullivan - but the fact is no one else is being held to this, including McCain. I agree with you that we need to disagree with Kerry when we do and, as supporters, we chose him because we perceived that he had higher standards than many others. The danger is acting as though he is "on probation" on some issues where their is nothing in his past to suggest he deserves it.

In this case whether he would pass muster with Klein and Sullivan (which he won't - he can walk on water on this and they'll fault him for something.) is less relevant than whether when his position is more defined, each of us can live with it. How well do Klein and Sullivan stack up against John Kerry on this? Klein, in particular, doesn't explain well why fear caused him to give up most principles he supposedly believed in. I assume that if he were asked when Kerry called for Rumsfeld's head over this, he would have defended Rumsfeld. He didn't call for resignation, which as a columnist he could have.

The same danger exists with DU - it feels good when people cheer him on, but there will be times when he is not in agreement with them.

[MH1]

35. Excellent point - he had to cut off the laundry list on the very 1st point

or else it would have been "why won't you answer that, when you answered on x, y, and z?"

I think you nailed it. I've revised my opinion - I think his response was correct, and I don't think it would have been good to answer about any item on the list. This wasn't the time for that kind of discussion.

[TayTay]

33. Kerry is against the use of torture by Americans in war

He has stated this repeatedly in the past and has reiterated this many times since the '04 loss. Sen. Kerry doesn't believe that it is a moral or right thing to do and questions the very need to do it since testimony acquired under torture is not reliable.

Chris Matthews was playing a gotcha game. He wanted to run through a list of things that the US had done to torture people; he mentioned waterboarding, no doubt he would have gotten to the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners and the use of freezing temps, deprivation, sexual taunts and so forth had Matthews let him. This is a feint designed to trip a person up and entangle them in what are, in the confines of the interview, nits. (Ah, so you are in favor of solitary confinement for months at a time, but not waterboarding. So, at what point do you stop.) This is a zero-sum game and Sen. Kerry was right not to play it.

The blanket statement, I don't believe the US should use torture as routine policy is solid. It is a blanket statement and avoids the need to go through the whole list of what was done, with Rumsfeld's approval, at Abu Ghraib. Sen. Kerry does not believe in the use of torture and strongly backs the Geneva Conventions in this regard.

Given that waterboarding was the 6th, and last, step in the list of what the US used as torture, I would take it that the Senator does not approve of it. If he did not approve of the first things on the list and found them against the Geneva Conventions, then it is illogical to assume that he would approve of the last and worst thing on the list.

[whometense]

34. Well said,

and I totally agree.

Kerry has been most forceful on the subject. Case closed, for me, anyway.

[ginnyinWI]

38. absolutely!

What I saw was a smart and experienced politician maintaining control of the interview. So many can't with Tweety, because he's experienced, too. He baits people and draws them into all sorts of tangles. Bravo, Sen Kerry, once again!

[beachmom]

41. Chris Matthews' question was not a gotcha question and it was no game

A gotcha game infers that the reporter/interviewer is not a stand in for the American people, but is instead more interested in their own ego and ratings than helping the public achieve its right to know. This was a VERY legitimate question, and the rest of your examples are as well.

Where does Mr. Matthews' question belong the most? At the White House press corps meetings, and EVERY SINGLE TIME the president is within earshot. And the press and media should not tire until the question is answered.

I am not picking on Senator Kerry here. This (and all) questions in regard to torture need to be asked, and specificially, of all members of Congress, and should be answered. This is NOT theoretical -- these things are happening RIGHT NOW.

I slept on it, and I feel the same way today as I felt the moment he dodged the question. As an American, I want elected officials to be on the record describing in specific terms what they think is acceptable iterrogation techniques and what they don't.

John Kerry has said, quite simply, "Tell the truth". Well, I want the truth, and yes, I can handle it.

[ProSense]

42. How do you know that?

Let's not be naive about the media when there are plenty of examples of bias, even from Tweety. Time and again, these journalists have demonstrated that they are willing to shill for the GOP, not serve as the an objective voice for the American public. You emphatically state Tweety's motive for asking the question, but there is no way of knowing that. It could easily have been a prelude to questions about a laundry list of techniques.

This isn't about truth; it's about the inferences you are drawing from the interview. Of the 100 Senators, I am most clear about Senator Kerry's position on touture. He is on the record as being completely against torture. This interview doesn't change that.

[beachmom]

43. It's just my opinion - I cannot know what is going on inside Chris's

head. But as a citizen, I liked that question, and I think it should be asked of ALL elected officials, starting with the POTUS. It's uncomfortable for sure, but we need some truth telling here.

Sen. Kerry is on the record as being against torture, but the question was is waterboarding torture. His not answering the question left the door open.

Look, I won't bore you guys with this anymore. I still am a big supporter of John Kerry - don't worry - and this is one issue of a thousand, most of which I agree with the senator. And the jury is still out on this one -- it may come up later and he will be clearer on his stand against torture, and what interrogation methods he means.

[ProSense]

47. You know, I don't think

the question was legitimate: "is waterboarding torture?" This is torture and it only entered the debate because of the Bush administration's deceptions. This is where I agree with Tay: It's one of the worst techniques and it is illogical to assume that he would approve of the last and worst thing on the list.

This is Senator Leahy: I think it is much more than offensive – I think it is barbaric.

The United States' Response to the Questions Asked by the Committee Against Torture

Geneva, Switzerland
May 8, 2006

Regarding the Committee’s questions about waterboarding, I want to make two points. First, waterboarding is not listed in the current Army Field Manual and therefore is not permitted for detainees under DoD control. Second, waterboarding is specifically prohibited in the revised Army Field Manual. It would not be appropriate for me to discuss further specifics of the revised Army Field Manual at this time.

A: The U.S. Government believes that it is not productive to comment on allegations about specific interrogation techniques or respond to hypothetical questions about whether specific techniques would constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. If we respond to questions about one technique, we will be asked questions about other techniques, ad infinitum. However, in Geneva earlier this month, the U.S. Delegation told the UN Committee Against Torture that the new Army Field Manual on Interrogation Techniques, which will be released shortly, will specifically prohibit US Armed Forces from using "waterboarding" as an interrogation technique.However, in Geneva earlier this month, the U.S. Delegation told the UN Committee Against Torture that the new Army Field Manual on Interrogation Techniques, which will be released shortly, will specifically prohibit US Armed Forces from using "waterboarding" as an interrogation technique.

In open hearings, Hayden's confirmation, waterboarding was linked to a statement by Porter Goss. Senator Feinstein pressed for a clarification of the administration's position. So Tweety asked a question, which probably wasn't appropriate, about a technique that is torture. It comes up in the continuing spin of the administration, and they are the only trying to confuse it with a legitimate technique.

[beachmom]

49. I just watched that part of the interview about 5 times

There is still no transcript on their website, so I transcribed it:

CM: Maybe it's a matter of wording. The president said he is using tough interrogation techniques. How do you read that?

JK: Those are legitimate if they're not torture (emphasis mine) . There are techniques which are legitimate under military practices (emphasis mine). This is not softball. It's war. It's tough. (he's stuttering a little here, gathering his thoughts) And the fact is that there are tough situations.

CM: Is water boarding in or out as you see it?

JK: There are things short of torture. (I believe he is finishing his previous answer here, but it's unfortunate timing)

CM: How about waterboarding. Make the guy feel like he's drowning.

JK: If we start going down . . .

CM: But isn't that what he's asking you to do in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, to basically legislate what's in and what's out in terms of how we treat prisoners in terms of interrogation?

JK: Well, if they want us to do every single particular practice, we can do that. We can write the manual for them, and we're happy to do that. But this shows the ineffectiveness of the administration that they're unwilling to do that in keeping with American values. I'm happy to do that. (and he now changes subject to Bush not being tough in the war on terror) .

The two bold areas are where it seems he is ruling out waterboarding, because that is NOT a legal military practice, UNLESS Congress were to change that (which is what Bush is asking for in the bill). But, come on, guys -- you gotta admit, this is NOT crystal clear. Who else is going to listen to something FIVE TIMES and try to gleam meanings from all of these phrases. It's very convoluted, and I would like to see a stronger statement of what, in Chris Matthews' words, is "in or out". It was not an inappropriate question because Bush has decided that waterboarding is NOT torture. It is important that Democrats counteract that bullshit in no uncertain terms (like the way you just did, Prosense), that, in fact, it is.

[Mass]

51. I agree he should answer more simply and directly to these questions.

I think I get what he means, but people will not spend their time reading and rereading these interviews to get the meaning.

IMHO, he makes two points:

- Torture is not admissible,

- If Bush needs that Congress gives him a list of what is torture, Congress can make it, but this is a sign of how this administration is screwed up.

However, because Matthews cuts him in the middle rather than letting him finish his sentences, it does not come clearly.

One of the problems is that, for the last few years, Democrats in general have been so worried about being labelled weak in defense and security that they think necessary to stress how tough they are. This leads to ambiguous statements like the part you stressed.

In my mind, there is no question that Kerry is on the right side of this issue, but, if he cannot communicate this simply and clearly in an interview, this is still a problem.

[ProSense]

52. "If we start going down . . ."

IMO, this could easily be interpreted, especially given the next statement, as an inference to going down a slippery slope of trying to redefine torture to make legitimate the infractions of the Bush administration.

That's how interviews go, with cross talk and interruptions. This is why it's important to not get trapped into answering inappropriate questions that give credibility to dubious claims. There is no question: waterboarding is torture. Bush simply can't decide that it's not. If he has authorized this technique, he has broken the law! It appears, similar to illegal spying, Bush is trying to get Congress to write legislation that would retroactively cover his illegal actions.

[beachmom]

54. It is important to be clear what the definition of torture really is

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/09/01/DI2006090100558.html

Foxboro, Mass: I'm confused.


Bush made this bold statement that the US doesn't torture that I thought should have already happened. Yet water boarding of prisoners has been documented. Did he miss the memo?


Dana Priest: Okay, under the rules in which the CIA was operating--rules judged by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to be legal--waterboarding was not considered torture. If you read the so-called Torture Memo of August 2002, you'll see that torture, as defined by the OLC there mean only techniques that cause severe mental or physical damage, organ failure or death. Water boarding does not cause such damage, does not result in organ failure or death. that's what the interpretation would be. Note: The DOJ repudiated the memo once it became public.

[ProSense]

55. "Note: The DOJ repudiated the memo once it became public."

No one needs to revisit the definition of waterboarding. By law, it is torture. This is the admin's spin: they want to redefine torture because it appears they have engaged in a "barbaric" practice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2816868&mesg_id=2816868


Senator Kerry has addressed Abu Ghraib and that memo many times:

We must also start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset in the war on terror. We play into the hands of our enemies and lose credibility when the Vice President lobbies for the right to torture, even after the Abu Ghraib disaster, when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has to publicly remind the Secretary of Defense that our troops have an obligation to stop torture when they see others doing it, and when we continue to hold detainees indefinitely in a legal no-man’s land.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=249580

[karynnj]

59. Nice link

Dana Priest is unfair later though on this question:

"Richmond, Va.: Will Bush's "dare" to Congress to pass legislation for military tribunals fall flat because, with the right opposition tactics, it can be seen as just another diversion to his failures in Iraq and elsewhere? Or is this an issue that "must" be legislated for electorial credibility, even if it risks another rejection by the Suprement Court?

Dana Priest: The Democrats have never been very clear on their position on tribunals, except to support the courts and criticize Bush. Much less so on secret prisons, although they did condemn torture (now how tough is that!). They did not take up this issue at all. John Kerry asked for a report on conditions in the prison "if they exist." That was just about the extent of it."

More than asking for a report, Kerry got an amendment passed overwhelmingly (although I never heard what happened after his and Kennedy's amendments were holding the whole bill up - because the Bush administration was against them. Also, Kerry's "if they exist" was because knowledge of the existance was leaked (to the WP) if Kerry didn't say "if they exist" at that point and reference the story, he likely would have been accused of leaking secret information.

Also note that Priest doesn't contradict an earlier questioner who says that this was likely McCain's issue.

[karynnj]

61. I got annoyed enough that I sent an email to

the internet part of the WP. I doubt see will correct the snarky idiotic comment she made.

Here's what I sent:
In the Sept 8, 2006 chat, there is the following:

Richmond, Va.: Will Bush's "dare" to Congress to pass legislation for military tribunals fall flat because, with the right opposition tactics, it can be seen as just another diversion to his failures in Iraq and elsewhere? Or is this an issue that "must" be legislated for electorial credibility, even if it risks another rejection by the Suprement Court?

Dana Priest: The Democrats have never been very clear on their position on tribunals, except to support the courts and criticize Bush. Much less so on secret prisons, although they did condemn torture (now how tough is that!). They did not take up this issue at all. John Kerry asked for a report on conditions in the prison "if they exist." That was just about the extent of it.

Her characterization of John Kerry's efforts on this issue are ridiculous. It sounds as though he simply "asked" for a report and doubted the existance of the prisons. In fact, the existance of the prisions was known from a leak of classified information published in your paper. John Kerry wrote an amendment requiring that the Bush administration give information to the relevant Senate committees that have oversight. The use of the phrase "if they exist" was likely because the government did not acknowledge the existance at that point in time. If the Senator had information that they did, in fact, exist, wouldn't it have been considered a breech of security for him to say so?. If he did not have the classified information, wouldn't it be questionable for him to repeat on the Senate floor information he couldn't verify?

This amendment must have had some value for oversight, because the administration engaged in manoevers I couldn't follow to prevent this amendment (and 2 of Kennedy's) from becoming law even though it passed the Senate 82-9. Link: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00318

What is clear is that Senator Kerry wanted accountability on the issue. News coverage of the passage of the bill barely mentioned Senator Kerry, unlike the torture bill passed ealier in 2005 that was always called the McCain amendment. (Note in an earlier question on the secret prisons, a poster referred to it as a McCain issue - and there was no attempt to correct that perception.)

After President Bush verified there were secret prisons, it was possible to speak about them. Here is part of what Senator Kerry said yesterday on Harball.

" But what it also underscores is that the president had an illegal, unconstitutional structure for detaining people that he was destroying, in a sense, the reputation of our country and hurting the values of our country in other lands where we need people‘s support.

And, finally, he admits what all of us have known under the ground for a long time, that we have these secret prisons which the United States doesn‘t condone. So, finally, he is adopting a policy of common sense that is in keeping with our values and the Congress ought to move rapidly and we ought to do what is appropriate under appropriate standards. "

Link to interview: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733559/

I don't know about Ms Priest, but these statements seem very strong to me. As this will stay in cyberspace for some time, could this letter be pased to Ms Priest in the hopes that she could answer the question more fairly than the current snarky comment does?

Thank you,
(karynnj)

[ginnyinWI]

37. I agree, karynnj

He was controlling the focus of the interview. Heaven knows, Tweety just loves to run off on tangents! JK wanted to talk about GOP political ploys, etc, and leave the legislative details for the Senate. Too much information isn't helpful to the average viewer. (But not for us junkies!)

[karynnj]

45. I just watched it again on TIVO

I noticed one thing I didn't the first time after the initial disscussion on torture - which Kerry wrapped up and switched to speaking about what the Bush policies have done to our place in the world, Matthews tried to bring the question back again to the issue of tribunals.

It's seems clear Matthews may not have even prepared other questions - when he switched to Iraq, he tried to reference Kerry's famous 1971 line - and absolutely blew it. In that whole last part, he pretty much let Kerry speak. The weak last question of wasn't Bush trying to do the same thing - set Kerry up to list Bush comments that send the opposite message. By, the end, this was not only not hardball, it wasn't even softball, it was more like Kerry tossing balls to a toddler, who happily tossed it back.

[beachmom]

46. Yeah -- you got that about right

I think Chris was very interested in that bill being sent to Congress, and had only studied that issue and prepared questions for that. I still say Chris did well (for the blowhard that he is) in asking good quesitons -- my big beef is that SOMEBODY in the MSM needs to ask those same exact tough questions of the president EVERY DAY until he answers it, or he can be pummelled for repeatedly avoiding answering.

You know, maybe this will be a turning point. If somebody on cable news is saying "waterboarding" and "torture" in the same sentence, people are eventually going to figure out it's EXACTLY what the president has been doing. This thing needs to get out in the open.

[karynnj]

48. I agree, also note that Kerry was able to say essentially as

a given that the President's actions on the secret prisons was unconstitutional and to link Bush pretty directly to oking torture with no one commenting on it. That's stunning. He also said that Bush lied about having known where OBL was during the '04 campaign and no one commented on it.

[beachmom]

50. I liked that part, too!

They totally lied (Tommy Franks, for example) in 2004, saying we didn't know OBL was in Tora Bora, and I was rather pleased that he called them the liars that they are.

If it wasn't for the section of the interview I excerpt above, I thought it was a fantastic interview.

[TayTay]

57. The transcript provided above leaves out the critical line

that prefaced Matthews individual list that he wanted to bring out.

John Kerry: "There is no appropriate torture, period."

I don't understand how that is equivocating. What Matthews did was ignore that and go into his prepared lines about, is this appropriate or is that appropriate. If you have declared that "there is no appropriate torture, period," then it stands to reason that you don't agree with torture, including anything done at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo or other places. Kerry sponsored an Amendment to the Intelligence bill last nov that asked for the President to release quarterly reports on what it was doing in regards to the 'secret prisons' established to skirt American law that prevent torture. Kerry took a lot of heat for that and the bill had a secret hold placed on it specifically because that amendment and two others from Sen. Kennedy asked for accountability on this issue.

Beachmom, this is not a case of questioning loyalty to Kerry. That is a bit puzzling. This is a person who specifically asks people to keep their own moral compass in time of crisis and to look to their own sense of right and wrong to guide them in turbulent times. There is no question that you are acting as a moral guide in raising these questions. That is not immoral, in fact, if you follow Sen. Kerry's own reasoning on this issue, it is the highest act of patriotism. (Love of country and the ideals of that country, not of individual people within that country.) You should question everything and hold it up to your own moral standards. Ahm, it is my belief that this is exactly what Sen. Kerry is asking you to do. You may end up, after this process, not agreeing with something he said. I think he would respect you deeply for that. (So do I.)

[globalvillage]

32. I hate to interrupt this very serious and important discussion.

But I have to add that the Senator looked awesome.

:-)

Kerry on.

[JanusAscending]

36. I sooooooooooo agree with you !!

I was so proud of him, I couldn't stop smiling through the whole interview. I was very happy that Tweety treated him with the respect he deserves. He listened to him and let JK answer his questions without "butting in" as he is prone to do. JK was completely PRESIDENTIAL, confident and poised, as well as INTELLIGENT !! What a breath of fresh air, compared to "His Idiocy the Emperor" This was MY PRESIDENT speaking today, and he did us all proud. I hope Teresa realizes just how LUCKY she is!!:loveya: :applause:

[ginnyinWI]

39. and I agree with you!

He looked great. Especially contrasted with Tweety, whose mouth is all craggy and saggy, although he can't be older than JK, can he? Must be all that B.S. that comes out of his mouth, day in and day out!

Watching JK today was for me another one of those "if only!" moments. I think of the people that might not have died, both in the Middle East and here in America.

[karynnj]

40. Nope, he's younger

Chris Matthews. Christopher John Matthews (born December 17, 1945) - So he's two years younger. You wouldn't guess it though.

[babylonsister]

44. He looked well rested, and let's face it, HOT!

:loveya: His well reasoned, intelligent responses makes him even hotter!

[wisteria]

53. I thought Senator Kerry was excellent in this interview.

he was in command and had all the facts to back up his claims when necessary.
He was passionate and angry when he should have been angry. I think the whole interview came off very, very well.
OMG, that speech tomorrow is going to be fantastic. I can feel it.

[ginnyinWI]

56. He's got Tweety tamed.

I've seen it several times now--Matthews hasn't played the "rude, hard-hitting pundit" with JK since an interview way back in early 2004--when JK stopped him in his tracks using logic and facts. Since then he's been a little lamb around JK. ;) Not that he's soft--he just makes sure to ask good questions and not screw around. It's almost as if JK's people said, "try that crap and we won't be back."

[whometense]

58. I agree.

I watched it this morning (it won't play on my home computer :-( and I had to watch the MA governor debate at 7). I thought the same thing - Tweety is so well behaved and serious it almost seems like a different person from that overheated, yelling red-faced Hardball guy.

Kerry did great. I love the way Matthews just lets him talk. :loveya: Now I'm primed for tomorrow's speech.

[ginnyinWI]

60. have a blast! n/t