Have we reached the circle-the-wagons stage of the campaign or can I get away with another jab at Maverick after the timetable post for him stupidly agreeing in substance with one of Obama’s stupid ideas? As atonement before we get to the critique, here’s a link to the transcript of McCain’s “audacity of hopelessness” speech to vets today in Denver, righteously laying out Barry O for his knee-jerk defeatism on the surge. There’s not much there that hasn’t been said over the past few weeks, but as a summation you can do worse.
Now, to Nuremberg:
Sen. John McCain on Friday said as president he would consider bringing Osama bin Laden to justice through a Nuremberg-like international trial.
He told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “We have various options. The Nuremberg Trials are certainly an example of the kind of tribunal that we could move forward with. I don’t think we’d have any difficulty in devising an international — internationally supported mechanism that would mete out justice. There’s no problem there.”
McCain said it would be a “good thing to reveal to the world the enormity of this guy’s crimes, and his intentions, which are still there.”
By all means, let us reveal this fiend’s top-secret intentions to the world. See my post from last month after Obama floated this turd of a proposal for why it’s so wrong on the merits; it makes sense politically at least in his case because he has to signal to his internationalist base that he prefers the criminal-prosecution approach to the war on terror, but what’s McCain’s excuse? Yesterday’s Rasmussen poll reminded us that Americans aren’t overly concerned about full due process when it comes to trying terrorists, and I’m reasonably sure the conservatives he’s trying to win over won’t be impressed with his concern for “international mechanisms.” Even worse, this constitutes a partial flip-flop. Via Ben Smith, remember this statement issued as a response to Obama’s Nuremberg comments?
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. By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.
Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed.
It’s only a partial flip-flop because McCain’s not insisting now on habeas rights for anyone, but like Smith says, if he’s promising to kill Bin Laden one way or another, what’s the point of a trial? A show trial only plays into Osama’s hands by letting him demagogue the supposed corruption of western institutions. Just lock him away or kill him, and let the media retrospectives about 9/11 that inevitably follow take care of “revealing” his crimes to the world.