The Kerry campaign has obviously decided that it's important for Kerry to emphatically state, over and over, just how much he wants to "kill" terrorists. In fact, the full approved phrase appears to be "hunt down and kill." With Bush and Cheney, the word choice has more often been along the lines of "capture and kill" or "bring to justice"; as on so many other issues, the Democrats are attempting to outflank Bush from the right by making their rhetoric even more extreme.
Kerry and Edwards bleat the "kill" mantra whenever they get a chance; they literally said it in every single one of the debates. Here was Kerry in the first debate:
I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.
[…] I will never let those troops down, and will hunt and kill the terrorists wherever they are.
In the second debate:
I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists.
[…] I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the terrorists, and I will not stop in our effort to hunt down and kill the terrorists.
And in the third debate:
I will hunt them down, and we'll kill them, we'll capture them.
And Edwards parroted the same line in his debate as well:
What John Kerry said — and it's just as clear as day to anybody who was listening — he said: We will find terrorists where they are and kill them before they ever do harm to the American people.
[…] I would find terrorists where they are and stop them and kill them before they do harm to us.
In fact, the Kerry campaign apparently thinks it's so important to emphasize Kerry's eagerness to kill that it actually put out an ad after the first debate to drive the point home for anyone who wasn't listening:
Announcer: "You've seen a debate where John Kerry was strong and clear, and that he would find and kill terrorists to protect America." […]
Kerry: "I'm John Kerry and I approve this message."
Yes, John, it's obvious that you do.
So now we know what would happen to "terrorists" under a Kerry administration. But just who would get to make the determination of who is a "terrorist" and who isn't? Apparently Kerry is perfectly willing to act as judge, jury, and executioner–or rather, to delegate those functions to the personnel on the ground. So no more need to worry about torture or human rights violations at Guantanamo; Kerry would make sure that menacing terrorists like these would never be taken to Guantanamo at all, but would instead end their lives in some unmarked grave in Afghanistan, Iraq, or wherever else Kerry decides to "hunt them down."
Progressives who are still holding fast to the hope that the John Kerry of 1971 is lurking somewhere inside this bellicose windbag–just waiting for an election victory so he can emerge into the daylight, throw aside all of this bloodthirsty rhetoric, and lead us to a future of peace, justice, and respect for human rights–seriously need to wake up and see exactly who it is they're supporting. He's not making a secret of it…if anything, he's proud of it.
The Distant Ocean 