Dean Versus Clark On Trying Saddam & Osama (Compare/Contrast)

[KittyWampus]

So now we can even further contrast Dean & Clark's grasp of International Affairs.

Dean- Iraq is "probably the best place to try Saddam". Dean is willing "to be flexible about that (trying him in Iraq) because I don't think the security interest of the United States are involved".

Clark- has a four point plan which starts by saying that it is best for Saddam to be tried in Iraq so that the people there can witness the PROCESS of Justice and have it unfold before them. This is, in fact, important to the stability of the entire region by promoting the Rule of Law and Democracy. He also said this will help in defeating Terrorism. So where and how Saddam is tried IS important to the security interest of the US.

Clark's four points:

**Location- In Iraq, where majority of offenses occurred. Make it Public & Transparent
**Procedure- Internationally recognized standards & procedures crafted by Arab League, UN and European Union but conducted by Iraqis.
**Participants- Parallel hearings in other countries with their findings being admitted into Iraqi court.
**Punishment- Death Penalty HAS to be there although ultimately up to Iraqi's to decide.

-The above is from my handwritten notes of the the NH Press Conference Clark gave on Cspan after returning from the Hague.
.................................................................................................................................................................

We can also contrast Dean & Clark's comments on trying Osama:

Dean didn't comprehend the importance of trying Osama in the Hague and thought it only important that he be brought to justice.

Clark knew that it matters because of the importance of promoting the Rule of Law, International Justice & Multilateralism.

MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we
catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?
CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's
very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for
trying them in the Hague, under international law with an international group of
justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens
in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs
to be tried in international court.
MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be
held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They
don't have capital punishment at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that's a separate issue. I think that's a separate issues.
MATTHEWS: No, it's a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not
execute people at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to
look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the
long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we
handle the war on terror from here on out.
MATTHEWS: But doesn’t life in Holland beat life in a cave?
CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're
cold, they're really miserable.
...............................................................................................................................................................................

MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?

DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...

MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would
you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or
would you let The Hague do it?

DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn'y make a lot of difference to me as long as he is
brought to justice. I think that's the critical part of that.

MATTHEWS: How about Saddam Hussein? Should we try him in criminal and execute him...

DEAN: Again, we are allowing the Bosnian war criminals to be tried at The International
Court in The Hague. That suits me fine. As long as they're brought to justice and tried, and
so far we haven't had to have that discussion because the president has not been able to
find either one of them.

Here's a link to a previous discussion...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=904414

[jmaier]

1. I think Wes Clark

has put more thought into this issue that Gov Dean but I don't really think there is a very strong fundamental difference between the two. From an election perspective, this isn't going to matter a whit.


Wes Clark. He will make an extraordinary American President.

[KittyWampus]

8. From An Election Standpoint You're Probably Very Right

Most people wouldn't care and would be just as happy to see both characters shot with nothing but a cursory trial.

But then, people who hang out on Political Websites on a regular basis aren't your average bears. :)

Oh, and I can't imagine the mediawhores taking up this topic either.

[KittyWampus]

32. Breaking: Dean Elaborates On Osama... Guess Voters May Care After All

In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press, Dean also said he wants Osama bin Laden to get
the death penalty, seeking to minimize fallout from a New Hampshire newspaper story Friday in which he
was quoted as saying the terror leader's guilt should not be prejudged.

[sfecap]

2. Maybe Wes could do a gift exchange?

He seems to like that approach...

[maddezmom]

4. hmmm

:boring:

[jmaier]

5. oh my,

another sideways ad hominem attack. I think I've misunderestimated how clever we all are.

[KittyWampus]

10. LOOK! There's Wes Practising Diplomacy Rather Than Resorting To Violence

as a first resort... :)

[Scott Lee]

20. In army fatigues.

*Giggle*

[retyred]

24. Yeah! And he didn't have to go to the Army Navy store to get them

retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[Scott Lee]

26. and this has....what to do with the subject at hand?

[wyldwolf]

28. Ironic you should ask that question...

He who either avoids the issue of diverts and flips to something else routinely.

[Donna Zen]

33. The subject you brought up

not the thread title. But since you've brought it up, I'm sure you are getting ready to add that Mladic was soon after that picture was taken found to be a war criminal, and has since been arrested, tried and found guilty. Thanks General Clark for making the effort to bring down those people by risking your own life to get the information we needed.

Considering how fair and well informed you are, I'll just wait.

[sfecap]

22. Interesting diplomacy.

Or maybe that's Wes' idea of diplomacy. A nice gift exchange.

Hey, maybe that's where * went wrong...he could have just sent Saddam a nice gift basket! Why didn't he ask Wes?

[robbedvoter]

31. FYI: the Sebrenica massacre took place almost 2 years AFTER the

caps. Clark was there to negotiate. Good to see that you and Milosevic have the same talking points.(RNC too - saw it on their site)

[JI7]

35. do you consider

do you consider clark's service in the military in serbia to have been honorable ? if not, why not ?

[batman]

3. BFD

theres bigger fish to fry

[maddezmom]

37. to what fish are you referring?

bush*, I hope?

[Scott Lee]

6. And now to correct your post.....

From a Dean speech on foreign policy at GWU (2/17/03)

Dean's basic approach to the war on terror was summarized in his foreign policy address at Drake University:

We must redouble our efforts through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to prevent nuclear materials from Russia and other former Soviet Republics from falling into the wrong hands.
We must follow through on our commitments in Afghanistan to prevent that troubled land from ever again serving as a base for terrorism.

Around the world, we must show an unwavering dedication to the principles of democracy, tolerance, and human rights, including the rights of women to participate as full and equal citizens in every society, including those in the Middle East.

Above all, we must be clear that no terrorist will ever intimidate the United States of America into withdrawing from the world or abandoning our allies, friends and ideals.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html


Notice the bolded text. One of the principles we hold dear, in a democratic society, is the right of due process - yes, even for Osamma Bin Laden. Dean has addressed the question of his trial succinctly, correctly, and without Clark's alarming attempt to direct the process of what should be a World Court procedure.

Once again, Dean is correct, and on the right side of the issue.

[wyldwolf]

9. Dean and due process

Dean chose not to reappoint Appel for a third four-year term as defender general, the state official who heads the state’s public defender program. In appointing Valerio, of Proctor, the new defender general, Dean had kind words for Appel. But Appel had clashed with Dean on numerous occasions in his efforts to secure for his office the resources necessary to fulfill his duties conscientiously.

Just two years ago Dean tried to prevent Appel from accepting a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities. For Dean to block a government agency from receiving federal money was unusual in itself. But Dean’s openly expressed bias against criminal defendants provided a partial explanation.

Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.

http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792

I was a public defender in Vermont during part of Dean's tenure. He was openly hostile to the defense function. He once addressed a meeting of defense attorneys by stating that "my job is to make your job as difficult as possible." He is a man of his word, at least on this campaign promise. He did not want to fund public defense.

To his credit he appointed Robert Appel to the post of Defender General (Public Defender in charge of the state system.) Then he refused to reappoint Appel apparently because Robert was most effective on the shoestring budget he was given.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003739.html

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks (9/11) and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said:

“I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far. Again, I think that's a debate that we will have.”

(Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello) said Thursday, “the civil liberties Dean seems to be talking about so blithely, that's exactly what makes us different from the murderers who committed these acts."

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

[Scott Lee]

18. a hit opinion piece? And a dupe too?

Come on wolfie, you're losing some steam here. Is it after-Christmas blahs, maybe?

[wyldwolf]

13. Are you correcting Dean's own words?

Because the original post contained direct in-context Dean dialogue.

Further, they were said months after what you posted.

[Scott Lee]

23. Let's take a look at Dean's words, as opposed to your insinuations...

All that effort, wolfie....and no substance? Allow me:

"Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks (9/11) and their aftermath would 'require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.' "

WHERE in there did Dean say that he favors a restriction of civil liberties? I'll make it easy for you. He doesn't. Anywhere. He says it would "require a reevaluation" and even suggested unwavering support for civil liberties as they stand by his insinuation that a cop shouldn't be allowed to ID you "just because" you're walking down the street. (see the bold)

Care to try that one again?


Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said:

“I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far. Again, I think that's a debate that we will have.”

Goodness me. Where in there does Dean threaten the Bill of rights? Nowhere. He merely states it will be part of a public debate, and it is. It has always been so.

Serious, wolfie....is this the best you can do? I am really, really disappointed and now realize why you shy away from an open and public debate.

[wyldwolf]

36. ****You're responding to the wrong post, but that is OK, I'll take both***

The correct one (the one you dodged) first:

In post #6, you said: And now to correct your post.....

This was in direct reply to the original message which contained verbatim in-context direct Dean quotes on the subject of bin Laden and Hussien.

So exactly how did you "correct" the original post and, thus, Dean's own words? With a speech given months before Dean's interview with Chris Matthews. So you either have some insight into Dean's mind that the rest of us don't have or the most you've done is shown Dean to be flipflopping on this issue.

Now, in post #13, in direct response to your post #6, I said: Are you correcting Dean's own words? Because the original post contained direct in-context Dean dialogue.

You directly replied with your post #23, which DID NOT even address the above but rather addressed my post #13 (So you effectively dodged, diverted, and spun out of the above discussion)

But let's examine your post #23 as it applies to my post #13. You asked in that post: WHERE in there (an article on Dean's position on post 9/11 civil liberties) did Dean say that he favors a restriction of civil liberties?

Unfortunately for your case, Scotty, I never said Dean did say that.

Your tactic here is akin to asking someone the no-win question: "Do you still beat your wife?"

So, in reference to Dean and post 9/11 civil liberties, Dean said he believed that the attacks (9/11) and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties."

Why did Dean feel that would be required?

I didn't.

You didn't.

Only those in lock step with Bush did.

Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said:

“I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far. Again, I think that's a debate that we will have.”

Why hadn't Dean gotten that far yet? If I'd been asked, I know exactly how I would have answered!

How about you?

The rest of DU?

So I agree with this:

(Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello) said Thursday, “the civil liberties Dean seems to be talking about so blithely, that's exactly what makes us different from the murderers who committed these acts."

Dean waffled. Couldn't answer direct questions on the subject. Took our civil liberties blithely.

Go ahead. Rationalize. Spin. Dodge. Divert.

But please either address our original discussion or both of these.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

11. Standard for Dean is the same as it was for Bush in 2000....

"But, he doesn't KNOW any better."

heh...remember Al Franken on how the media let Bush say anything no matter how inconsistent or how dumb it was?

Same thing for Dean.

[KittyWampus]

14. At Least For Now

Even their criticism seems rather half hearted at the moment. I shudder to think of how they'll manage to grow teeth if Dean does get the nod. Dean wouldn't weather the storm very well.... he is an undisciplined speaker.

[blm]

16. yes, I should have specified...for NOW.

We all know what will happen if Dean IS the nominee. The RNC has a nice collection of Dean lies and inconsistencies already in stock.

[MoonRiver]

12. Clark has more know how and expertise in national security

and international affairs than Dean. This fact is indisputable.

Bottom line, IMO, is that Clark can beat * and Dean is probably toast against the Rove machine.

[many a good man]

15. That Clark fella would make a mighty fine Secy of State

n/t

[wyldwolf]

17. That Dean fella would make a fine Surgeon General...

[Scott Lee]

19. But an even better President. Chyaaaaa!

[wyldwolf]

27. But not nearly as good a president as Wesley Clark or John Kerry...

...or John Edwards or Dick Gephardt.

Chyaaaaa!

[robbedvoter]

21. I notice a lot of "I" and "me"s in HD's statements

While Clark is considering the victims - even gasp the non-US ones - he knows that 80 countries lost people then (eventhough Tweety thinks there were 3000 Americans)

[Scott Lee]

25. Sorry, is it illegal for Dean to use first person pronouns now?

Now that's one I didnt see coming....

[robbedvoter]

30. Legal. Also revealing. Memories of W on 9.11: "First thoughts?"

"First, I thought what I had to say, then I thought of my parents, my wife..."
Then he got out of harm's way. Also legal.
I'd like a POTUS who, for a change will think of the American people in a crisis...That's why I support Clark. You think that's legal?

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. That Dean answer to Tweety's question is awfully

err, ummmm, err.........BUSH-ISH. That sounds like something the brainless wonder would say. Clark's is much more thought out, comes from experience and is MUCH more intellectual. Dean sounded like he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. JMCPO

[Myra]

34. Thanks for this thread. Even if it is a touch subject.

Thank you to those who are focusing on policy and not outrageous smears.
There are some jaw-dropping smears on this forum right now,
and I appreciate the attempt to swim upstream and discuss policy
differences.