Fighting To Stop Torture

OK, enough double-talk and obfuscations from the Republicans. Let's get it out in the open: who believes the United States should never use torture, and who does not?

No more statements like the typical Republican response, "We won't comment on specific procedures we may or may not do." Let's get specific and show everyone what makes America America: We don't torture, and waterboarding is torture.

I opposed Judge Mukasey's nomination because of his refusal to take a stand on whether or not waterboarding is torture.

But he said that if Congress passed a law that made it clear where we stood on this reprehensible practice, he'd enforce it. So, here we go: let's define waterboarding as torture once and for all.

I'm a cosponsor of Sen. Kennedy's bill that defines a wide variety of specific things as torture, including waterboarding. It's another reminder why I am so proud to be Ted's colleague. But it's also another reminder that those who suggest there's nothing we can do to stop a run-away executive are just dead wrong - if we've got the courage of our convictions.

But, like everything we try to do, we're going to have to ram it past the opposition of some Roadblock Republicans, and I'll probably need your help.

Listen to veterans who know the importance of the Geneva Conventions prohibitions on torture to our soldiers on the battlefield. Listen to what John McCain says about torture. It's a vital dividing line between civilization and barbarism, even in the worst of war. A country can't cross that line without suffering grave harm, from increased danger to its soldiers to a lessening of moral authority in the world. There are some dividing lines of right and wrong that simply should not be crossed, and torture is one bright one. And I'm determined to do all I can to keep our country on the right side of that line.

In an Administration where Attorney Generals have seemed conveniently unsure of what constitutes torture, let's give the next Attorney General a law that leaves no doubts in anyone's minds. Let's bring all of the United States government under the Army Field Manual's directives, and specifically define as torture a series of actions and techniques, such as waterboarding, mock executions, beating or "other forms of physical pain to an individual", and a number of others.

The sad truth is that we need to do this when you have an Administration that has blurred the lines of torture and a Vice President who lobbied for it. It's time to make the Administration hear the voice of the American people saying, "We believe this is wrong, and we won't have this done in our name."

I set up a petition on my website where you say tell Congress that you believe that torture isn't just immoral, it should be illegal. I included a place where you could put your own thoughts on why you believe this so strongly. We should all add our voice and say, "Not in our name!" So, click here to add your name to the list of Americans who are saying just that, "There will be no torture in my name."

But that's not the end; this will be a long legislative fight, and this is not just a petition, this is the beginning of a campaign to make this happen. So I'll be keeping in touch with you, letting you know about more opportunities to make a difference, from calling into the offices of your Senators or Representatives to writing letters to the editors of your local paper and much more.

This is not going to be an easy fight. The Roadblock Republicans are well practiced in their methods of obstruction and fear on these issues, and they'll be pulling out all the stops on this one, I'm sure. (The only time they seem to want to talk about Osama bin Laden is when they're trying to defend actions like this, so I'm sure we'll hear lots of scaremongering throughout this fight. We'll need your help to get this done.)

It's time to help put our country on record: torture is against the bedrock morals of this country, and we won't stand for the use of it in our name.

Comments

[shades3]

The problem that is created by defining specific acts as torture is that those not specifically named are then seen by those who would circumvent the law as permissable, merely by their omission.
I don't think that there is any doubt of what torture is. The situation in which the U.S. and by extention the rest of the world finds itself is that we have come to the point where our recognization of any adversary's basic humanity is being denied.
We are being asked to set aside any thought that they are exactly the same as we are, fellow human beings.
Humiliation as damaging, if not more damaging to a captive person as is physical pain, and much more long-lasting.
One would almost think that the Bush Administration is using the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, or the decade earlier Milford Study as playbooks, rather than being warned by the cautionary lesson that they revealed.
Sadly, as we've seen, civilization is only a very thin veneer, developed over thousands of years, easily shredded and cast aside by those who are at their evil core, savages.
Does the world want to devolve into savagery, after working so hard to become a species that holds itself above such behaviour??
If you are the Bush Administration, apparently not.
Sad that it took such a short time in human history to come full circle.

[PghMike]

This strikes me as somewhere between foolish and silly.

The only way this situation is going to get fixed is to put a statement that both the military and the intelligence agencies must follow the Geneva conventions for treating anyone in their custody, and attach it to the military funding bill.

The Democrats already have enough votes to ensure that no funding bill passes without their approval. Even with a few defectors, Reid can ensure that the only bill that gets voted on has these restrictions. Bush can veto it, but Bush only respects strength; he'll eventually cave if the Democrats don't cave first.

This brings up a related issue: I gave lots of money to help elect a Democratic Congress. But since the election, all they've done is cave after making a photogenic stand. There is still no deadline for leaving Iraq; no legislation closing Guantanamo; no legislation closing the CIA black sites; no legislation allowing detainees to challenge their detention in a non-Kangaroo court.

And I don't even hear these issues, with the exception of Iraq, being discussed.

What, exactly, has having a Democratic Congress gotten us, except an illustration of what fearfulness looks like?

[Aramingo]

Excuse me, but weren't the Japanese who used waterboarding prosecuted as war criminals? Didn't they do time for their actions? And what does that say about the current enablers of such vile practices?

[JimReed]

John,

Torture is damaging our country, but behind that there is a bigger problem. We started a war with a country not a threat to us, and we did it for greed. All these other issues like torture are just fallout from that basic and unaddressed issue.

Behind that, there is another even more basic issue that I don't think either party has addressed. We are spending way too much to build up militarily. We spend way more than anyone else, we have all the most advanced weapons systems, and we have most of the world's stockpiles of WMDs. We should start by cutting our military budget in half. We would still be way too powerful for any other nation to even think of attacking us, and that would help reduce tensions around the world and allow other nations who are afraid of us to start spending less on their military. Do you think we are building this army for offense or defense? Is this an issue that could be discussed in congress, or would it be political suicide for any senator to say we should be spending less on the military because we have far more power than what we need for defense of the nation?

[BabyBoomer]

With all due respect Senator Kerry, isn't waterboarding already considered to be torture. Why do we need new law? Just to protect those who have already committed crimes? Senator Durbin doesn't feel we need new law. I think that one thing is clear. The House Judiciary Committee needs to start impeachment inquiries. It really is long overdue. I know the Democrats don't want to impeach, but they really must.

[RadicalRepublican]

Sen. Kerry,

I support your effort. I'm in my 22nd year active duty Air Force and I'm surprised by the cursory training I'm getting on LOAC. In the 90s, we had at minimum a 60 minute brief followed with a test. Today, we watch a short video followed by a short quiz with the same questions each year. The value of taking the high road and doing the right thing by denouncing torture and making it a UCMJ issue comes from the American lives it saves. When your enemy knows he'll be treated humanely as a POW, he's more likely to surrender rather then killing more troops. When he believes he'll be tortured, he'll fight to the death taking as many with him as possible.

Knowing ones actions are honorable is its own reward. The cold, hard practical aspect identifies how renouncing torture actually supports the troops. A yellow magnetic ribbon doesn't do that.

Respectfully,
mike

[lgillooly]

Go for it.Get it done and we have your back.We are depserate to save this Country and are tired of safe politics. We all know these people should be impeached and realize why it hasn't been done. Believe me,safe politics,will be a loser.
If we get stuck with Rudy this Country will not survive.

[outnow]

Senator Kerry,

I did sign your petition but I agree with some of the comments above to the effect that (1) Torture is already illegal under federal law and treaties, and: (2) that any bill which purports to immunize anyone for torture retroactively is allowing war criminals to escape their day of judgment.

The Torture Memo is to the effect that terrorirst are not prisoners because they are not in uniform and that terrorist did not sign the Geneva Conventions. Further, that there is no criminal liability for the chain of command.

No! Stop! The day will dawn when the American people wake up and want justice against war criminals. The Senate has been a rubber-stamp for torture and illegal wars of aggression. Renditions have been going on since 1997, according to Amnesty International. The true story of the CIA Rendition and Torture Program is no longer secret - nor has it ever been legal.

[forwhatitsworth]

Has it not crossed your mind that by creating a list of what is and is not torture, you will be playing right into the hands of this administration, the neocons and their enablers.
One can only imagine the horrors this crowd will come up with to extract information from human beings, and when discovered and confronted, they will point to this list and say it isn't torture because its not on the list! And congress will find itself time and again, having to pass laws to add yet another torture technique to this list wasting valuable time better spent on the people's business. The definition of what constitutes torture is unequivicol and has served mankind well for centuries. We do not need a list because some facists want to parse words.

[Overd0g]

Sure. But first define torture.

[KenFr]

Torture IS illegal. Geneva Conventions, remember them?

Forget the Republicans, Get the Democrats some BALLS and we have a chance.

Back Kucinich in IMPEACHING the bastards that got us into Iraq that led to torturing innocent Iraqis and you'll have a chance.

But stop acting like a helpless victim and just take charge.

[huffblow]

Ok Mr. Kerry, just what is YOUR definition of torture?

[cyberhawk]

Ok Senator Kerry what is it that you guys want for the media.They are allowing discrimination to be instilled in all Americans through the attitude's of high profile people such as yourself and Hillary for example.What is the plan for the media for the next 10 years?Do we continue to discriminate through our attitude's and false beliefs?Or do we find a plan of change for the media and set into action this plan.I plan that allows for freedom of speech for every American.How are we to defend ourselves against an attack on our rights?Shouldnt the media have incentives to do the right thing and not discriminate?Shouldnt they punish the one's who are so blanantly contributing to the disruption of our right way of thinking for money's sake.What is on your mind sir?Is it who is going to take the heat for this attitude or is it who is going to fix this attitude.You can count me as one who is trying to fix this problem.I voted for you for president of the United States and I will vote for Barack Obama not Hillary.He has the plan ,can't you see, for us democrats down here in Texas.

[Dap]

Dear Senator Kerry,

I don't like this... *NOT* one bit! You are creating an out for Bush, an after the fact out, think about what you are going to do. You are in fact saying, these techniques were not illeagal at the time they were used.

That is *not* the case, they are already illeagal by treaty, which is the law of the land. The Bush administration has broken that law, what is needed is accountability.

An ex post facto *Out* for this Bush administration is unthinkable!

That's my two cents worth. Agape.

[Desiderata]

If Congress writes and passes a new anti-torture law when current law already makes torture a crime; doesn't that, then, shield the Bush Administration from prior and current ciminality in it's use of torture?

Let me make this simple for you, Senator__stripped of all nuances__: if a President commits murder, does the Congress pass a new anti-murder law instead of arresting the President?

By passing new laws that ignore existing laws, you will support the filthy lie that the President and all his subordinates are above the law. And as in this Bush game of Chess, you will have "Kinged" him.

To think I voted for you. Now I just want to vomit.