Kerry Backs Much of Pre-Emption Doctrine

[Thanatoast]

Kerry Backs Much of Pre-Emption Doctrine

By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites)'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 (news - web sites) 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.

Kerry said the intelligence needs to be improved so that the word of a U.S. president "is good enough for people across the world again."

But he added, "I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation."

Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt complained that Kerry proposed cuts in intelligence spending while in the Senate. "John Kerry's attack is another example of his flailing efforts to defend a record that is out of the mainstream," Schmidt said.

Kerry spoke one week after the Senate Intelligence Committee sharply criticized prewar intelligence on whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The report did not address Bush's role, but Kerry said, "as commander in chief, the president of the United States must take responsibility for what happens on his or her watch."

The four-term Massachusetts senator said that nearly three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, "this president has not taken action sufficient to fix the intelligence problems that have plagued us."

Outlining his own proposals, Kerry repeated his call for creating a director of central intelligence who would oversee all facets of the nation's intelligence operations. He also proposed at least doubling spending for clandestine operations, improving interagency coordination and accelerating reforms at the FBI (news - web sites) to improve its handling of domestic intelligence.

But Kerry stopped short of supporting a proposal by his running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina, to create a new domestic intelligence agency similar to the British MI5 agency. Supporters of a new agency say the FBI has been more concerned historically about criminal investigations than intelligence; opponents fear a domestic spy agency threatening Americans' privacy.

Edwards made it clear later at a Democratic fund-raiser in Los Angeles that he had backed away from that approach, proposed during last winter's primary elections, and that Kerry's plan was "our plan."

He said the plan was "just plain common sense."

"It's been almost three hears since 9/11. It won't take us three years to put the reforms in place," Edwards vowed.So, is this Kerry just trying to sound tough for all the split voters who actually believe in this doctrine? Or does he really believe in it? If he actually plans to use pre-emption as a defining doctrine in his policy, what's the point of voting for him? Has Bush so changed the rules of the game that we can only operate foreign policy by way of open war?

[Sayhey]

So, is this Kerry just trying to sound tough for all the split voters who actually believe in this doctrine? Or does he really believe in it? If he actually plans to use pre-emption as a defining doctrine in his policy, what's the point of voting for him? Has Bush so changed the rules of the game that we can only operate foreign policy by way of open war?

This is Kerry stating what every President in history has said. Sure he is also trying to sound tough, but there is nothing to get excited about here. What Bush has stated in his doctrine of preemption is that there doesn't need to be a threat to this country or its allies in order to strike first. In the context of the post 9/11 world no one doubts the right, both morally and in international law, for the US to strike at al Qaeda. What Bush did, and Kerry does not support, is the use of force when there is not an imminent danger to the US. The reporter just doesn't understand the difference.

[Thanatoast]

What Bush did, and Kerry does not support, is the use of force when there is not an imminent danger to the US. The reporter just doesn't understand the difference.Wouldn't this be an important distinction to make sure comes out in the story? Sloppy thinking (and in this case, sloppy reporting) gets us into too many troubles.

[takao]

So, is this Kerry just trying to sound tough for all the split voters who actually believe in this doctrine? Or does he really believe in it? If he actually plans to use pre-emption as a defining doctrine in his policy, what's the point of voting for him? Has Bush so changed the rules of the game that we can only operate foreign policy by way of open war?

my guess is that kerry meant a strike against terrorist camps etc. and not a full scale invasion with his "preemption strike" was

but i had to grin about your last sentence ;)

[skunk]

my guess is that kerry meant a strike against terrorist camps etc. and not a full scale invasion like his "preemption strike" was
I agree with this interpretation. Still a breach of sovereignty, but no more "ownership", in Colin Powell's terms. That is more in the spirit of the UN Charter anyway.

[Desertrat]

If the rulers of a country are proven to be actively supporting a terrorist group which is known to be planning a strike, is invasion then warranted?

("Proven" and "known" are intended, here, to be reliable and absolute terms.)

'Rat

[skunk]

If the rulers of a country are proven to be actively supporting a terrorist group which is known to be planning a strike, is invasion then warranted?
I can't imagine a situation where you would gain from an invasion. A pre-emptive strike on a base is one thing, taking over a country is quite another. Anyway, you'd have to make a very good argument to convince the UNSC. There ARE provisions if the threat is clear enough. I think Bush should be pressed on the legality of what he did, not just the political wisdom. Looks like this is happening over here already:

Attorney General warned Blair on legality of war

By Severin Carrell and Andy McSmith

18 July 2004

Tony Blair was warned before the Iraq war by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, that a UN court could rule Britain's invasion unlawful, The Independent on Sunday has learnt.

The warning was in Lord Goldsmith's so far undisclosed legal opinion from 7 March last year, less than two weeks before the conflict began. Fearing that the International Court of Justice could rule it was illegal to go to war without the express authority of the UN Security Council, the Attorney General put senior barristers and international legal experts on standby to help to prepare the Government's defence if needed, legal sources said.

As Mr Blair prepares for Tuesday's parliamentary debate on the Butler inquiry, the revelation will intensify pressure on him to publish all Lord Goldsmith's legal advice leading up to the war.

Michael Howard, the Tory leader, is expected to join the chorus of those saying that John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, should be denied promotion to the job of the next head of MI6. But the Conservatives plan to concentrate their fire on Tony Blair.

Today, Mr Howard even suggested that if he had known then what the Butler report has since revealed about the preparations for war, he might have led his band of Tory MPs to vote against it. Interviewed by The Sunday Times he said: "It is difficult for someone, knowing everything that we know now, to have voted for that resolution."

Senior international legal experts have accused the Government of invading Iraq illegally, because it failed to get Security Council authority and there was no immediate threat to UK security. The former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a QC, said: "I think there's a case to answer. I think it's hugely difficult to argue that when the Security Council refuses to pass a resolution you can simply unilaterally use a previous resolution as a case for going to war."

Charles Kennedy, the Lib Dem leader, will press Mr Blair on why the Hutton inquiry was not told that intelligence on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons had been withdrawn by M16 prior to the decision to go to war, because it was unreliable.

An indication of the strength of public feeling came from the Leicester South by-election last week. The Lib Dems won what was previously a safe Labour seat, and a candidate for the anti-war fringe group Respect took more than 3,700 votes.

The Butler report's revelations about the discrediting of WMD intelligence have been seized upon by international legal experts, led by Professor Philippe Sands of University College, London. The report also showed for the first time that Mr Blair had ignored the fact that UN inspectors could find no evidence of an active weapons programme in Iraq - despite legal advice that "incontrovertible" evidence was needed before an invasion.

The Government insists that the Attorney General is bound by rules of lawyer-client confidentiality, and that publication would undermine his freedom to give frank opinions to ministers. However, the barrister Michael Mansfield said civil service rules clearly allowed ministers to publish legal advice.

Sir Menzies Campbell QC, Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said Lord Goldsmith's opinions went "to the very heart of the decision to take military action. The rule that the Attorney General's advice should not be published was conceived in the public interest. On this issue, the public interest in disclosure over-rides any other consideration".

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=542151

[Desertrat]

Would there have been near the disruptions of Al Qaida's affairs/capabilities had we not gone into Afghanistan and ended Taliban support for AQ?

'Rat

[skunk]

Would there have been near the disruptions of Al Qaida's affairs/capabilities had we not gone into Afghanistan and ended Taliban support for AQ?

'Rat
That was with UN approval, wasn't it?

[mactastic]

If the rulers of a country are proven to be actively supporting a terrorist group which is known to be planning a strike, is invasion then warranted?

("Proven" and "known" are intended, here, to be reliable and absolute terms.)

'Rat

What if those words aren't proven to be as reliable as we think they are?

Besides, haven't you always argued that intel gathering isn't an exact science? That's been your defense for Dubya Inc. many times.

And this is like asking if you are in favor of the death penalty in cases where guilt is assured. It's a nice moral debating point with no basis in reality. It's analogous to my HS physics classes that would ask us to solve problems "in the absence of air resistance". Great practice on the theoretical aspects, but absolutely no use IRL.

[Sayhey]

The US had the right under international law to go into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. This was upheld in UN Security Council resolutions (S/RES 1368 and 1373 both passed in Sept. 2001) and was also supported through the invocation of Article 5 of NATO.

The invasion of Iraq has no such justification. Although the Bush administration likes to wave around the Security Council resolutions of a decade earlier, when it finds them convenient, there was no authorization for the US to invade and there was no evidence of an imminent threat to the US from Iraq. Made up and exaggerated threats do no qualify.

[skunk]

The US had the right under international law to go into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. This was upheld in UN Security Council resolutions (S/RES 1368 and 1373 both passed in Sept. 2001) and was also supported through the invocation of Article 5 of NATO.

The invasion of Iraq has no such justification. Although the Bush administration likes to wave around the Security Council resolutions of a decade earlier, when it finds them convenient, there was no authorization for the US to invade and there was no evidence of an imminent threat to the US from Iraq. Made up and exaggerated threats do no qualify.
Just what I said, but a bit more long-winded... :rolleyes:

[Sayhey]

Just what I said, but a bit more long-winded... :rolleyes:

I specialize in long winded. ;)

I thought I'd give the resolutions numbers and throw in my two cents.

[skunk]

I specialize in long winded. ;)

I thought I'd give the resolutions numbers and throw in my two cents.
Thanks. A few facts never go amiss. ;)

[GeeYouEye]

The US had the right under international law to go into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. This was upheld in UN Security Council resolutions (S/RES 1368 and 1373 both passed in Sept. 2001) and was also supported through the invocation of Article 5 of NATO.

The invasion of Iraq has no such justification. Although the Bush administration likes to wave around the Security Council resolutions of a decade earlier, when it finds them convenient, there was no authorization for the US to invade and there was no evidence of an imminent threat to the US from Iraq. Made up and exaggerated threats do no qualify. UNSC Resolution 1441 does not equate with "Security Council resolutions of a decade earlier".

[Sayhey]

UNSC Resolution 1441 does not equate with "Security Council resolutions of a decade earlier".

No, it does not. The resolution (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm) , passed in 2002, is very important in that it gives Iraq one more chance to comply with previous resolutions and let UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq and demands Iraq provide the UN with complete accounting of its WMD weapons programs. It also specifically states that it (the Security Council) "[d]ecides to convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security." It further warns of "serious consequences" if its demands are not met. No where does resolution 1441 give the US the right to invade.

If I remember my recent history right, Iraq complied with this resolution (finally) and gave an accounting as well as let Hans Blix and his inspectors back into the country. At no time did the Security Council give Bush the legal right to invade. Which is the whole point of this discussion, long-winded as it may be. ;)

[tristan]

This fits in with my theory that Democrats and Republicans are almost identical on foreign policy and only really differ on domestic issues.

The stereotype is that Dems are more pacifist and Reps are aggressive, but:

Kennedy invaded Cuba and sent the first troops to Vietnam
LBJ stepped up the Vietnam war
Nixon recognized Communist China
Carter tried to free the hostages through military means
Reagan made more arms reduction deals than anybody
For all his talk, the only country Reagan invaded was Grenada
Reagan, Bush, and Gorbachev were best buddies
Bush gave MFN to China for years
Clinton bombed Iraq and sent troops to Bosnia that are still there
Kerry and most other democrats voted for just about everything Bush has done

So I don't really think the parties are very different on foreign policy - When you're Commander in Chief, your decision making process is based on strategic interests and is pretty much independent of party. I believe that President Al Gore would have invaded Iraq based on best available (though ultimately sketchy) CIA intel, and would have gotten beaten up by the right for the decision - just like Blair's getting beaten up by the Tories.

[Sayhey]

This fits in with my theory that Democrats and Republicans are almost identical on foreign policy and only really differ on domestic issues.

The stereotype is that Dems are more pacifist and Reps are aggressive, but:

Kennedy invaded Cuba and sent the first troops to Vietnam
LBJ stepped up the Vietnam war
Nixon recognized Communist China
Carter tried to free the hostages through military means
Reagan made more arms reduction deals than anybody
For all his talk, the only country Reagan invaded was Grenada
Reagan, Bush, and Gorbachev were best buddies
Bush gave MFN to China for years
Clinton bombed Iraq and sent troops to Bosnia that are still there
Kerry and most other democrats voted for just about everything Bush has done

So I don't really think the parties are very different on foreign policy - When you're Commander in Chief, your decision making process is based on strategic interests and is pretty much independent of party. I believe that President Al Gore would have invaded Iraq based on best available (though ultimately sketchy) CIA intel, and would have gotten beaten up by the right for the decision - just like Blair's getting beaten up by the Tories.

I think a good argument can be made for your view that the GOP and the Democrats were very close in foreign policy before Bush. Although their have been times when there where very important differences in specific areas, such as McGovern vs. Nixon around the Vietnam War or Reagan vs. Mondale on negotiations with the Soviets or support and training of death squads, in a general view of the world that reflected itself in overall policy there was indeed a consensus since Truman's Containment days.

Bush has changed all of that. His adoption of the neoconservative view of the world is a fundamental break with the consensus that had the US as the leader of a multinational commitment to, at least formally, support for international law and to oppose the preemptive use of force without the existence of an imminent threat. This is a move back to the days when the old colonial powers reserved for themselves the right to use their military power to reorder the world as they see fit. That is an important and real difference between Kerry and Bush.

[IJ Reilly]

An important distinction, yes -- but also a subtle one, and I'm afraid far too subtle to communicate effectively to voters. The message Bush will hammer home for the next few months will be blunt, if only half-true: "Kerry supported the war, now he opposes it." How does Kerry craft a response that doesn't sound to most people like he's shaving or hedging? I hope he can, but I honestly don't see how. Instead, I think he'll advance the vague argument, "Bush is reckless, I am not."

[Sayhey]

An important distinction, yes -- but also a subtle one, and I'm afraid far too subtle to communicate effectively to voters. The message Bush will hammer home for the next few months will be blunt, if only half-true: "Kerry supported the war, now he opposes it." How does Kerry craft a response that doesn't sound to most people like he's shaving or hedging? I hope he can, but I honestly don't see how. Instead, I think he'll advance the vague argument, "Bush is reckless, I am not."

Kerry tries to do this when he talks about the use of force as a last resort not as a first response, and when he talks about our support for historical alliances. The reality is the perception of who is right will be decided by the events on the ground in Iraq. At this point that perception by voters doesn't look very promising for Bush.

[blackfox]

Not really sure where if this thread is a good place for this quote, but I found it so priceless, I had to post it...
The Bush-Cheney campaign, signaling the line the GOP plans to take next week during the Democratic National Convention, issued a policy memo accusing Kerry of attempting "an extreme makeover" to "reverse a record on intelligence and national security that would weaken our ability to fight and win the war on terror."
Even with our currents administration's obvious reality-impairment and penchant for irony...this has got to be a classic.

I can't really say much more, as I am somewhat dumbfounded by it's existence...except to say, if you agree that US intelligence has been excellent and National Security tight in the last 3 and-a-half years, vote Bush...if not Vote Kerry...(doesn't anyone read the paper any more?)

[Thanatoast]

How does Kerry craft a response that doesn't sound to most people like he's shaving or hedging? I hope he can, but I honestly don't see how. Instead, I think he'll advance the vague argument, "Bush is reckless, I am not."
"Bush lied and I believed him. Let's not make the same mistake twice"
At this point that perception by voters doesn't look very promising for Bush.
But voters tend to make big noise about foriegn policy, and then vote according to the domestic economy. So unless Iraq is truly fubared, it may not affect Bush's support enough to elect Kerry.

[Leo Hubbard]

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-09-2004::17:46|reuters.html

[Neserk]

No one said Kerry was perfect. Just better than Bush by a million miles.

[skunk]

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively.
That's a hell of a lot different from going to war on a false pretext.