"Kerry Backs Much of Pre-Emption Doctrine"

[G_j]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4320095,00.html

Kerry Backs Much of Pre-Emption Doctrine

Saturday July 17, 2004 6:16 AM

by KEN GUGGENHEIM

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists if he had adequate intelligence of a threat.

Kerry offered some support for one of the most controversial aspects of President Bush's national security policy, even as he criticized the president for not reforming intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

``Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am,'' he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters.

The Bush administration laid out the doctrine of pre-emption months before the Iraq war began in March 2003. It argued that the United States cannot rely on its vast arsenal to deter attacks and must be willing to strike first against potential threats. Critics of the policy say the Iraq war shows how the country could be driven to war by flawed intelligence.

..more..

[noahmijo]

1. This is a dupe

Somebody else already posted this and was corrected for using the "Kerry backs Bush pre-emptive doctrine" statement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=114923&mesg_id=114923&page=

[hightime]

3. You should include links when you challenge a post as a dupe.

Just to be fair.

[G_j]

7. I did a search on "Kerry backs much"

it didn't come up

sorry, didn't mean to post a dupe

[noahmijo]

8. I just did I had to go back and find it jeez

[hightime]

11. Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.

Just trying to help out.

[noahmijo]

12. Yea I'm sorry I snapped but it's just I'm getting really sick of

certain types who continue to please the GOP by pushing the "Kerry is a war mongor" statement. or "Kerry is bush-lite look he'd attack a country for no reason too!"

[hightime]

15. And here I am just trying to drink. lolol

Point taken, I hope you have a reclining chair and can take a moment to relax with me. Cheers.

[noahmijo]

18. buddy I would in a second

I'm sitting in a hard ass wooden chair in my kitchen in near darkness for some reason I'm relaxed yet my ass hurts like hell.

A drink does sound nice think I'll grab some wine.

[G_j]

5. you must use the original headline per LBN rules n/t

[Moderator]

13. LBN Rules clarification

The linked-to thread exists in the Politics & Campaigns forum, but not in LBN.

Since inter-forum duplicates are, in most cases, allowed, this particular thread isn't a "dupe."

In other words, LBN was scooped by P&C hours ago! ;-)

- DU Moderator

[G_j]

16. thanks

I only did a search for LBN posts :-)

[rucky]

26. I'll say. I feel duped, too. n/t

[G_j]

27. well said

[DaveSZ]

2. Has he spoken out about his stand on the child torture yet?

?

[noahmijo]

4. Oh I'm sure Kerry supports child torture

after all he's nothing but a war mongor who supports Bush's ideas of pre-emptive war.

:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

9. Yes, he is for child torture of all kids over 5.

:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

6. Bushco isn't about preemption, but premeditation.

They don't give a shit about the "war on terror." They don't care about terrorists. If they did, there would have been more than 11,000 troops in Afghanistan and we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

I applaud Kerry for that statement. He is correct and in his shoes, I'd get them too.

[blitzen]

10. ok, thanks for telling me...i guess i'll vote for bush n/t

[noahmijo]

17. All kidding aside I think it's obvious he's going to address it

just wait for it, if he doesn't do it first thing in the morning, just cool it okay? I think it's 1000% obvious to everyone that he's not going to say anything positive about it. It's one of those issues that doesn't necessarily require Kerry to make a fair of it, it stands on its own as heinous and as a testament as to why the war was wrong ect ect.

[G_j]

21. I think he MUST address it

and hope he does.

[mzmolly]

14. This is regarding terrorism, and frankly I agree.

Kerry is speaking about the Osama Bin Ladens, NOT the Saddam Husseins.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

[noahmijo]

19. I agree with it too this was my response to the first posting of this

Okay think of it like this.

You see a man standing outside of your house with a gun. You don't know him but it's obvious he's looking to break in and kill you or your family.

Would you wait untill he strikes or call the police immediately? (or better yet kill him yourself but I understand not all of us are able to perform such an act)

When Kennedy attacked Cuba before doing so I recall that he showed the public pictures of missles in Cuba pointed right at us.

In other words if Kerry were to attack pre-emptively he would show the public hard evidence it wouldn't be this "well I say they are a threat so that's that" (a la Bush)

I dunno about the rest of you but if I saw satellite photos of an unfriendly nation setting up nukes and pointing them at California or New York and we had reason beyond doubt (the nation's leaders were heard to say "death America!") I would support a pre-emptive attack as well.

What Bush did was lie and hoodwink the public into believing Iraq was a threat without showing ANY credible evidence.

Kerry would not do this that is the difference.

[union_maid]

20. I think Clark said something similar

This from memory so might not be reliable, but I seem to recall Clark going into the difference between preventative war and pre-emptive strikes. He called the Iraq invasion "preventative" and said that under certain circumstances pre-emptive attacks are justified, but he wouldn't do a "preventative" one, or something to that effect. The idea was that "pre-emptive" applied when you were absolutely certain that something was about to happen and it was imininent.

[G_j]

22. it seems to me Clark saw the invasion of Iraq as unwarranted

where Kerry hasn't actually been as clear. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Pastiche423]

23. He's the

Democractic choice, why?

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are supposed to be opposite, as in the opposition.

I swear, I never would have believed, if someone told me twenty years ago, that the two parties would blend together so seamlessly.

I want out of this fucking nightmare!

[wtmusic]

24. Necessity and proportionality

the two principles that have answered the question well for about 350 years.

[freeforall]

25. OK, can anybody tell me...

just how Kerry is different from Bush?

Sure sounds like the same shit to me.

[troublemaker]

28. It's AP's fault, not Kerry's

There's nothing in the article showing that Kerry said he favors preventive war (which is a violation of international law)

The reporter seems to think the Iraq war was pre-emptive though it was actually Preventive (and thus illegal)

Kerry says he supports pre-emption and the reporter then calls that Bush's policy because the reporter is a fool. The right of all nations to pre-emptive war is unquestioned; it's considered self-defense. The UN is cool with it. It's prevailing intl law.

So why does this Guggenheim dim-wit call it Bush's policy?

[belle]

34. I don't know, but I ASSUME he meant...

something more along the lines of,

"we know that there's a cell of Al Qaeda planning an imminent strike, we know where at least several of the key people are, we're going after them."

which is after all what Clinton did on at least one occasion, trying to get OBL. the only problem was, he missed. which Bush mocked him for.

so now Bush has gotten thousands more innocent people killed and plundered the Constitution along with it. and he STILL hasn't gotten OBL.

[onehandle]

29. So we attack terrorists when they are a threat.

Just like we often did before Bush. He just put it down on paper.

Somehow, I don't see Kerry using this to knock over a country for oil.

I trust Kerry not to act as Bush has.

[G_j]

30. "I trust Kerry not to act as Bush has."

so do I. However I am not happy that in general he seems to be pro-empire. I really was hoping for a more signifigant change.

[JackDragna]

35. You hope in vain.

This is what we get when we settle for pro-Patriot act, pro-war candidates. This was the year to run someone with some real backbone and the Democratic Party blew it.

[Maat]

31. The key is whether or not there is imminent danger of serious..

harm. The only reasons to go to war, as far as I'm concerned, jive with international law.

Correct if I'm wrong, and I've spent the last four years studying the law, but if there is a gun pointed at you, you have indisputable proof that you are in danger of serious harm. You are in imminent danger. Thus, in response to the imminent danger of deadly force, the law says that you may protect yourself by responding with deadly force, if a reasonable person would feel that he or she is in imminent danger.

I would not fault an individual for responding appropriately, nor would I fault a country. But one of the DUers is right. There is a difference between responding to a viable imminent threat of deadly force, and just killing someone or invading a country because you think they might hurt you. If a dictator had invaded us, because he thought we might...might hurt him, we would call him a war criminal. So...turning the mirror around....

Maybe Kerry just means that he would abide by international law, and only invade if (1) we were attacked, (2) in defense of others - they were attacked, (3) we were in imminent danger, or (4) our ally was in imminent danger. That is jiving with domestic law, and international law.

What do you guys think? I do not want to respond like the Sharon government does, and just go around and kill people I think might be a danger. To me, that is contemptible. And hurting family members, not just the criminal himself.

I would like to see clarification from Kerry. The U.S. invasion in Iraq, I believe has been viewed by members of the United Nations as being illegal, has it not?

[Maat]

32. Course I should add...I'm no legal expert seeking to impart...

my wisdom. But I did like the analogy of a person being threatened by another person with a gun. That illustrated the U.N.'s point about imminent danger, I believe.

[G_j]

33. very constructive

thank you for laying the issue out in a way one get a grasp of.
This is why I agree more clarity is needed on Kerry's part.

[Sugarbleus]

36. It's very later where I am. I just heard about this from my radio

I must say that, at first, I was shocked to hear the details of Kerry's words.

I had to think about the pre emptive thing for a bit. I guess if we were in REAL imminent danger, we'd be expected to do something. I assume the Kerry means to use ALL brain power and resources available to determine if the threat is real before making such a move.

Some callers into this radio station mentioned accountability for a prez. Like drawing up a statute stating that if a prez does pull a pre emptive and he's wrong....he then has to pay the piper, if you will, for his mistakes. Unlike Bush who will, no doubt, go scott free for his crimes.

I was puzzled about Kerry's statement saying he would not allow other nations to VETO a decision by a USA prez to us pre emption! Kerry really needs to be much clearer on these things. I'm voting for him but I'm less happy with him than I was before. I have a queasy feelilng. Other's argue that the difference right now between the two(bush and kerry) is "Who do you Trust more".... yipes! I guess I'll just have to wait and see how it all shakes out.

I'm not terribly impressed with a few of his domestic policies either..they seem to have changed since his primaries phase. Some of the "lesser" candidates are starting to look better to me.
In the end, Bush has to go. I will do the right thing...but I'm doing so with a wee bit of trepidation.

[riverwalker]

37. good point

Imminent danger is a gun pointed at your head.
It is not having a neighbor two miles down the road who is rumored to own a gun, so you go to his house, kick in the door, beat the heck out of him, terrorize his family, trash his house, then declare "well maybe you didn't have a gun, but I bet you were thinking about it".

[Pepperbelly]

38. Apples and oranges ...

Pre-emption vs. striking terrorists and their infrastructure.

One is a bad idea, the other is a good one. These fucks will do their absolute level best to muddy the water and conflate the two but what they are is apples and oranges.

[Cooley Hurd]

39. Kerry's idea of "pre-emptive strikes" will differ greatly...

...from Bush's (or, at least, I really hope so). I would assume that, with a completely different NSC apparatus, it would only take place after rock-solid intelligence has been gathered (not on the word of one guy named Curve Ball :eyes:), and even then it would be surgical and would COMPLETELY avoid the killing of thousands of civilians (like in Iraq & Afghanistan).

[VolcanoJen]

40. Kick!

Also, as a reminder, inter-forum duplicates are permitted. This thread remains the original LBN thread on this topic.

Thanks!
VolcanoJen
DU Moderator