‘Even Adolf Eichmann got a trial’

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on habeas corpus and suspected terrorist detainees has faded a bit on the political world’s radar, but the McCain campaign continues to believe the issue will benefit their candidate. Indeed, just this afternoon, McCain’s in-house blogger blasted Barack Obama’s campaign for “conflicting answers” on whether Osama bin Laden would be entitled to habeas. The blogger admonished Obama for trying to “have it both ways on this issue.”

That’s an interesting choice of criticisms.

John McCain initially responded to the Supreme Court ruling with mild disappointment. “[I]t is a decision that the Supreme Court has made,” McCain said. “Now we need to move forward.” A day later, McCain said the high court’s ruling was “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” It was quite a rapid reversal.

McCain spent the ensuing days bragging about his support for indefinite detention, which is odd, considering that McCain adopted Barack Obama’s position on the issue as recently as three years ago. Here’s what he told Tim Russert June 19, 2005, which as you’ll notice, is the exact opposite of his position now:

“Now, I know that some of these guys [at Guantanamo] are terrible, terrible killers and the worst kind of scum of humanity. But, one, they deserve to have some adjudication of their cases. And there’s a fear that if you release them that they’ll go back and fight again against us. And that may have already happened. But balance that against what it’s doing to our reputation throughout the world and whether it’s enhancing recruiting for people to join al-Qaeda and other organizations and want to do bad things to the United States of America. I think, on balance, the argument has got to be — the weight of evidence has got to be that we’ve got to adjudicate these people’s cases, and that means that if it means releasing some of them, you’ll have to release them.

“Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.”

Imagine, just for a moment, what the right would do if Obama said, for the sake of our national reputation, that we might have to release terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, if we took McCain’s quote, attributed it to Obama, and sent it to Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, they’d talk about little else for the rest of the year.

TP’s Ali noted that McCain, last week, invoked the Nazi war crimes trials to insist that bin Laden should be denied habeas, when in 2005, he cited the exact same war crimes trials to argue the exact opposite point.

Those accused of Nazi crimes at Nuremberg were not tried under U.S. law, and thus did not have explicit habeas rights. But Nazis unquestionably received fairer trials than terrorist detainees today. The fact that some accused and tried at Nuremberg were found innocent and released shows that Nuremberg offered a practical habeas right. By contrast, the Pentagon has indicated it could continue to imprison a Guantanamo detainee indefinitely, even if he were found innocent by a military tribunal.

What, exactly, does McCain find so frightening about bringing Osama bin Laden to court? He is unquestionably guilty and will be found guilty. A fair trial would only add moral authority to his conviction. Or is moral weight another aspect of the war on terror that McCain doesn’t care about?

Perhaps Michael Goldfarb, McCain’s in-house blogger, can remind us again of which candidate is offering “conflicting answers” and trying to “have it both ways on this issue.”

At this point, I’m confused.

Imagine, just for a moment, what the right would do if Obama said, for the sake of our national reputation, that we might have release terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, if we took McCain’s quote, attributed it to Obama, and sent it to Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, they’d talk about little else for the rest of the year.

I am sssoooo tempted to fire up my Vocus system, get a couple of email addresses, and just to see if any of them take the bait.

I bet Kristol is dumb enough to fall for it.

  • If Obama were to say something like that, the righties would accuse him of being pro-Nazi.

  • Nazi war criminal who was tried, found quilty and hanged during the Nuenberg trials

  • This is what happens when the campaign’s got nuthin’. It’s not like McSame has to pander for conservative votes anymore, since he has the nomination in hand. While Bob Barr will be a problem for McSame, especially in GA where those Electoral College votes are very important, the McSame campaign’s bigger problem is that their guy trails by 15% nationally even with the fawning press coverage he’s been getting to this point.

    We still don’t know who the VP candidate is going to be, and this will be more important than usual. The rest of the crowd running this year for the GOP was pretty hideous, so I don’t think any of them will be it. Jindal and Pawlenty have issues with infrastructure in their respective states, and there really isn’t a RSR (= rubber stamp Republican) with enough stature who isn’t a Rovebot that owes their seat and soul to Karl, or has issues with various moral failings. Also, adventures at the convention will be fun, and Obama will clean McSame’s clock in any debate, just by using the McSame words already in the press. With videos.

    Just as a side note, what are the succession rules if the candidate drops out after the convention for “health reasons” or some such? Putting on the tinfoil for a tad here, I really do not see the power structure currently in place giving up control with the attendant expectation that they themselves will be bus bait, if for no other reason than that would be the easiest way to say “voila, change!”. So, McSame would be a stalking horse for a (probably) Cheney-approved (like Dick was) candidate. Nothing stops DC from being the President in this scenario. But Monica Goodling’s better on the eyes. Oops, too young. How about Jeb?

    Even the scare stuff isn’t working. So, how to “energize the base”? Perhaps the CA marriage initiative can help (won’t be enough, though), but the good hardworking bluecollar guys even in Indiana are backing Obama over McSame. That’s how much they do not like him.

  • The Boumediene decision did not actually give everybody habeas corpus rights. It only gave them the right to challenge whether they were actual combatants. If the gov’t can show that they actually are connected with Al Qaeda or Taliban, they can be held indefinitely.

  • redrover @ #5:

    adolph eichmann escaped germany and lived quietly – mostly in south america – until he was “rendered” off the streets of buenos aires by mossad agents in (i think) 1960. he was brought to isreal, tried, and finally hanged in 1961.

    what made him of interest? he was a mid-level functionary who developed the railroad system for delivering jews to concentration camps – a prime example of hannah arendt’s “banality of evil.”

  • “But balance that against what it’s doing to our reputation throughout the world and whether it’s enhancing recruiting for people to join al-Qaeda and other organizations and want to do bad things to the United States of America.”

    Why are we so terrified of a bunch of motley would-be or might-be or not-be terrorists that we have to resort to such barbaric treatment as torture and permanent incarceration? We keep talking about al Qaeda as if it’s some mighty army with millions of warriors and the ability to do battle against the world’s strongest military. It’s ridiculous.

    For the millionth time, ordinary crime is a much greater threat than terrorism could ever be in the United States, and we manage to take it in stride without getting hysterical and without violating the rights of those who are accused. There’re two million people in prison (yes, far too many non violent offenders) that we’ve managed to process in an orderly fashion . But then there’s a few thousand losers we’ve rounded up, no doubt many or most of whom are not terrorists, and we can’t handle them withour resorting to inhuman acts and cruelty? There’s just no excuse for this. None.

    Our civilization is not being overrun by hordes of terrorists galloping through every city and town chopping our heads off and blowing up all the buildings and infrastructure, and there’s no reason to act as if it is.

  • Thanks, mellowjohn @8, for setting this straight. I wasn’t even born during the Nuremberg trials (which took place in ’45-’46) but vividly remember the search for, daring rendition of, and the subsequent trial of Eichman. Polish radio and TV talked of hardly anything else during that time.

  • “Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.”

    Yeah, but 9/11 changed everything. McCain just gets confused over which came first from time to time. Too busy straight-shootin.’

  • Am I the only one that finds it just a little bit creepy that a man who was captured, detained indefinitely and tortured in Vietnam now supports indefinite detention without trial and refuses to rule out torture as a means of extracting information?

    There are some dark and troubling thought processes that go on in Senator McCain’s mind.

  • Why the hell are we not seeing these old McCain quotes in the media each and every day> There’s just no end to the examples. Every single day Steve hammers away at McCain and it gets nowhere in the press. Sigh. It’s not like we haven’t been offered excellent theories on this very point in the past. Keep hammering.

  • Good point Nicole.

    Here’s a thought. Obama doesn’t want personal attacks by surrogates on either side. He certainly doesn’t want his supporters doing it. But progressive 527 groups are entitled to show the inconsistency in McCain’s policy positions.

    I’d be delighted to support a series of full page press ads running in all the major newspapers listing in McCain’s own words his various flips flops. For example:

    25 Oct 2007: John McCain said: “Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique.” (Des Moines Register)

    1 Nov 2007 : Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Thursday the United States does not use an interrogation technique known as waterboarding and argued that Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey would not allow the method. (Associated Press)

    20 February 2008: Republican presidential candidate John McCain said President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

    McCain voted against the bill, which would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.

    His vote was controversial because the manual prohibits waterboarding – a simulated drowning technique that McCain also opposes – yet McCain doesn’t want the CIA bound by the manual and its prohibitions. (Associated Press)

    It’s a sure way of getting the message out – paper doesn’t refuse ink and newspapers don’t refuse money. Progressive groups are motivated and willing to put their money where there mouth is. So why not put that money and enthusiasm to use by creating some clarity and balance?

  • Comments are closed.