McCain, Nuremberg, and habeas corpus

Some people are saying that what McCain said here:

is a McCain flip-flop on a Nuremberg-Style trial for bin laden because he criticized Obama when he brought up the idea before.

I don’t think it was really a flip-flop because McCain was attacking Obama’s inconsistency (in McCain’s opinion) and not necessarily the Nuremberg idea itself:

Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg war trials. Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremburg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. Senator Obama cannot have it both ways. In one breath he endorses habeas for terrorists like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and in the next he denies its logical conclusion of habeas for Osama bin Laden.

There are several problems with this, however:

1. Habeas Corpus is a writ to challenge your detention. Habeas corpus is a necessary writ to prevent a government from arresting and holding people without recourse.  Unless the government is holding people without evidence (obviously not the case in bin laden’s case), then resolving any habeas challenge should be routine.
2. The Nuremberg trials were created pursuant to the terms of Germany’s unconditional surrender at the end of the war in Europe.  As a result, it is a rather special animal that can’t really compared to anything today, at least if one is going get down to the specifics.  It’s not that the war criminals tried at Nuremberg were never offered habeas corpus rights, it’s that those rights were surrendered upon the unconditional surrender of Germany and the consent of the Germans to having war crimes tried in an interenational tribunal.
3. Obama was likely referencing Nuremberg to give an example of an international tribunal, not to suggest a specific set of rules and procedures for such a tribunal.

Obviously the terrorists haven’t consented to being tried by us or anything of that nature, so they still hold their habeas rights as long as we don’t treat them as prisoners of war.  It is likely that if we capture bin laden alive and wish to try him in such an international tribunal, we would dot our i’s and cross our t’s so ensure that we have proper legal authority to try him in such a manner, in which case if bin laden chooses to invoke his habeus right, it should be dealt with and dismissed in a pretty routine manner.

One should also note that, if bin laden is captured, he may very well be held in US custody, but not on US soil (like most other detainees in Guantanimo) and thus isn’t immediately subject to US Constitutional jurisdiction (like those being held in Guantanimo).

Obama Afghanistan Email Author Recants Letter

It appears that the latest Obama smear email has now been utterly debunked.

The letter that was being sent around was a legitimate letter written by a real soldier.  However, that soldier is now recanting his account and is requesting that anyone who is promoting what he wrote in his original email to take the letter down:

Now the Bagram captain is dialing back, having signed the viral e-mail with his name, rank and unit – a possible violation of military regulations barring political statements. This morning, he sent The Mouth a new statement (punctuation corrected):

“I am writing this to ask that you delete my email and not forward it. After checking my sources, information that was put out in my email was wrong. This email was meant only for my family. Please respect my wishes and delete the email and if there are any blogs you have my email portrayed on I would ask if you would take it down too. Thanks for your understanding.”

An Army officer familiar with the incident told The Mouth today that the writer is “devastated that the letter was made public. It was never his intention that it go beyond members of his family.”

Now, will the right wing and PUMA sites actually honor the wishes of this soldier and take down his email which even he himself now says was written in error?

While I obviously believe that this soldier should have had his facts straight to begin with, I at least commend the fact that he is willing to admit when he is wrong.  And one should note that the author of this letter never meant for it to be spread all over the internet either.

Snopes debunks “Obama ignores the troops” smears

Pass this to everyone you know, since this email seems to have spread pretty rapidly:

Claim: Barack Obama “blew off” U.S. soldiers during a July 2008 trip to Afghanistan.

Status: False.

[...]

It’s difficult to independently verify the details recounted above because press coverage of Senator Obama’s Middle East visit was severely limited, but according to an Army spokesperson (as quoted in the New York Daily News) they are false:

The latest chain e-mail smear against Barack Obama: He “blew off” troops at an Afghan base to shoot hoops for a publicity photo.

The e-mail claims Obama repeatedly shunned soldiers on his way to the Clamshell – a recreation tent – to “take his publicity pictures playing basketball.”

“These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect,” said Bagram spokeswoman Army Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel.

Obama didn’t play basketball at Bagram or visit the Clamshell, she said. Home-state troops were invited to meet him, but his arrival was kept secret for security reasons.

“We were a bit delayed … as he took time to shake hands, speak to troops and pose for photographs,” Nielson-Green said.

Remember, Air Strikes are Safe for Civilians

Right?

The Vice Presidential Contenders: the GOP side

I haven’t really discussed who I thought would be a good person for Obama or McCain to name as their barnacle Vice Presidential candidate, but since everyone else and their mother (and probably her mother as well) is, I thought I would throw in my own 2 cents as well.

I’lls start off with the GOP slate first.  Let’s look at McCain’s candidates that are being thrown around the most:

Tim Pawlenty – The arguments in favor of Pawlenty are that he won re-election as a republican in 2006, which was obviously a very tough year for republicans, and that he may put states like Minnesota and Wisconsin into contention.  The latest Quinnipiac showing McCain within 2% in Minnesota may give McCain hope at this prospect as well.

However, the problem with that is that both of those states have been strongly favoring Obama as late.  Quinnipiac not-withstanding, most projections still show both Minnesota and Wisconsin currently favoring Obama by around 10%.  Choosing Pawlenty could swing the state if it were within 5% perhaps, but asking to swing 10% is asking for quite a bit.  Also, even though he won in 2006, he only won by 27,000 votes out of over 2 million cast, and it’s hard to see how his stock could have risen since then, especially after that whole bridge collapse thing.

Personally, I think choosing Pawlenty would be a horrible choice, since he’s unknown, is no guarantee to help McCain any additional states, and doesn’t seem to add anything of quality to the ticket otherwise (like, say, economic prowess, etc.).  What exactly would the rationale be to choose him?

Bobby Jindal – Elected governor of Louisiana in 2007, the biggest argument for Jindal are probably that he’s a rising star in the party, and he isn’t and old, white man.  That might be able to counter the “wow, we could have the first African American President” thing that Obama might have, at least slightly.  He would also appease the base, at least in his political beliefs.

The biggest negative to Jindal is that, if McCain’s main argument against Obama is his lack of experience, he would basically lose that argument with Jindal, who would have spent all of 4 years in elected office come inaguration day 2009 (at least Obama was a member of the Illinois State Senate for 8 years before becoming a US Senator), though Jindal has had an additional 9 years or so of experience in one appointed position or another, either at the state or federal level.

Also, given that the Republican base has been conditioned to be leery of any “scary brown people,” I should note that, even though Jindal is a strong Roman Catholic today (though, that fact may, itself, be a problem with the base), he had been Hindu up into high school, so one might be unsure how that would play.  On the other side, moderates may be leery of the story of Jindal partaking in exorcisms while in college.

Again, I’m not sure what McCain gains by choosing Jindal.  If he really thinks he can stop Obama from being elected by putting a non-white person on his ticket, then perhaps that would be enough for McCain, but I fail to see what real positive there is for McCain choosing Jindal.

Charlie Crist – Crist is the governor of Florida, elected in 2006 by a healthy margin, despite the mood in the nation that year.  Crist appears to be pretty popular within the state of Florida, particuarly with the African-American population in the state, which could effectively put Florida out of reach for Obama.  He also holds some positions which the GOP base would like, including supporting Florida’s ban against allowing gays to adopt.

There are a few negatives for Crist as well.  While he holds some positions the GOP base likes, he also takes some positions they don’t like, such as an apparently strong anti-global warming position (sans his new-found support for offshore drilling) and his support for right-to-die and living wills (think Terry Schiavo).  Crist is also relatively unknown, despite holding elected office in Florida nearly continually since 1992.

The primary negative for Crist, however, might be something which isn’t in the forefront and is something which the McCain camp might have difficulty dealing with and which may scare off the GOP base: rumors that he is gay.  These rumors are so prevalent that it has led people to say that Crist being gay is the “worst kept secret in Tallahassee.”  I’m not sure the GOP base would be happy electing the first potentally gay President or Vice-President, even if he is still in the closet.

If McCain and Crist (who recently got engaged) feel that they can effectively battle against the gay rumors, Crist may be one of McCain’s best choices for Vice-President, as he’s both experienced, has a balance of moderate and conservative stances, and would make carrying Florida exceptionally difficult for Obama if the election is close.

Mike Huckabee – Of course, Mike Huckabee is the runner up in the GOP nomination race, and would kind of harken back to the Kerry/Edwards ticket from 2004.  Huckabee, of course, was governor of Arkansas for 10 years.  Huckabee would also appease many of the anti-McCain people in the GOP as he was the primary candidate many of them ultimately supported.  If McCain’s goal is to keep the GOP base, there may not be a better pick than Huckabee.

The primary problems with Huckabee are the flip-side of his positives.  While the GOP base might love him, more moderate voters may be spooked away by him for his taking a hard line on Immigration, holding very strong anti-gay views, publicly stating his support for teaching creationism and his hostility towards evolution, and supporting a national sales tax.  He’s also made statements to the effect that the Constitution should be amended to better match Christian Biblical tennants.  Huckabee has also had earned a bit of a reputation as someone who shoots off at the mouth quite a bit, which could cause McCain problems if Huckabee were to say something inappropriate during the campaign.

The problem here for McCain is that he needs both the GOP base to come out and he also needs to win over independents, and it would be very difficult to find a Vice Presidential candidate who can do both.  If McCain believes that his reputation alone can overcome any fear by moderates about Huckabee, then Huckabee might be a good choice due to his reputation with the base.

Tom Ridge – Tom Ridge is the former Secretary of Homeland Security, former governor of Pennsylvania, and fellow Vietnam veteran.  As opposed to Huckabee, Ridge would clearly be a play toward the center for McCain as Ridge is both well known and seen as relatively moderate.  If McCain wants to steroid up his national security credentials, then adding Tom Ridge would also be a good choice.

The primary negatives for Ridge is that the GOP base might see him as a problem, as he supports abortion rights.  There is also a potential problem with Ridge for moderates as well, as he was a high-profile member of the Bush Administration, though he left after Bush’s first term, so he may have been away long enough that it may not end up being a factor.

If McCain either believes that he’ll keep the GOP base no matter what, or if he’s already lost them no matter what he does, then Ridge would be a pretty good play in order to get moderates.  He could also potentially put Pennsylvania more into play than it is today.

Mitt Romney – The person who most people think has been making the most effective case for being chosen for the 2nd spot appears to be Mitt Romney.  He would add two things to McCain’s ticket: someone who has a reputation for being solid in economic matters, and someone who fundraise.  While, fundraising isn’t necessarily an issue for McCain himself in the general, as he’ll be taking public financing, the republican committees – the senate and house committees and the RNC – will all still need fundraising, and McCain might be able to use Romney to help with that.

The biggest negatives for Romney, however, is that it is unclear whether anyone actually likes him.  Both the GOP base and independents potentially don’t like Romney as he has come off as being fake – having run as a rather liberal republican to become governor of Massachusetts, and then doing an about face and running as a conservative in the primary.  Romney’s flip-flopping past may just amplify McCain’s own flip-flopping, both before and after he won the nomination.

It’s difficult for me to see how Romney is a good choice.  If he’s doing it for the money, it reeks of desparation, as money no longer beomes an issue after the election, and it’s unclear how else Romney helps the ticket.

Others – Many other people have been listed as well, including Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who now finds herself in a major scandal back home which probably eliminates her from the race, Carly Fiorina, who drove HP into the ground and has no political experience, and Robert Portman, who might be the best pick of all if he weren’t so unknown.