In an infamous episode of South Park, famed attorney Johnnie Cochrane used the Chewbacca defense to win a civil case about who wrote a pop song. The case had nothing to do with Star Wars or Chewbacca, but Cochrane makes the red herring argument that Chewbacca is a Wookie, but lives on a planet full of Ewoks, and therefore, "if Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."
Former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. was on Meet the Press today, arguing with Republican consultant Mike Murphy about Obama's statement that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. Ford said, of course you need conditions; "[Obama]'s made clear, however, that those conditions, he assumed that that was implicit."
Murphy responded, "The mistake was that he didn't make those conditions explicit."
Ford concludes, "Implicit, explicit: change is what Americans want."
The defense rests.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 18, 2008 10:01 AM | Email Thishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html
McCain said that we should diplomatically deal with Hamas 2 years ago. The only thing that is changed is McCain is running for president.
Posted by: Deward Bowles on May 18, 2008 10:34 AM"We are the change we seek." - Obama, (M)arxist, IL
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 18, 2008 10:47 AMUnless Pudge can provide evidence that former Congressman Ford speaks for Sen. Obama, it is Pudge who has introduced a red herring into this discussion.
The prosecution rests.
Posted by: tensor on May 18, 2008 11:02 AMThe article against McCain is simply stupid. It is saying McCain is "hypocritical" even though it cannot give a single example of where his position has actually changed. It is basically asking us to think that because he was in favor of have SOME sort of dialogue with Hamas, that therefore he favored Hamas itself, which is an illogical and incorrect assumption.
tensor: The more preconditions we place upon negotiations, the easier said negotiations will fail.
You cannot support that claim. It is not true.
As we now lack an effective military
You cannot support that claim. It is not true.
Does a "rogue state" lie to start a war
You cannot support the claim that we lied to start the war. Indeed, you cannot even support the claim that we started the war, since the fact is that it started in 1990 with Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
imprison without due process
EVERY nation at war imprisons without "due process" ... unless they don't take prisoners at all.
eavesdrop without a warrant
As we did under Clinton, you mean?
develop needless nuclear weapons
Are you saying all nuclear weapons are needless? That is obviously false at worst, and mere unsupportable opinion at best.
Unless Pudge can provide evidence that former Congressman Ford speaks for Sen. Obama, it is Pudge who has introduced a red herring into this discussion.
I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. Why am I only allowed to criticize people who speak for Obama? You can invent any rules you want, but I don't have to care what rules you invent.
He, and, per force, our country would become a disaster were he to ever enter the White House as anything but a tourist.
Posted by: Hinton on May 18, 2008 12:43 PM"EVERY nation at war imprisons without 'due process' ... unless they don't take prisoners at all..."
Please cite the Congressional vote which declared war. Furthermore, the Third Geneva Convention always applies to prisoners taken on the battlefield, even those who do not wear uniforms of recognized states. The Bush Administration's refusal to uphold this Convention has made us a rogue state.
"As we did under Clinton, you mean?"
I was unaware that our standard for governmental behavior had become "whatever Clinton did." Please do enlighten us on why Clinton, and not the Constitution, should be our standard.
"Are you saying all nuclear weapons are needless?"
Nope. Just ones developed after we have enough to deter aggression. (Those would be any developed after the fall of the Soviet Union; we have enough to deter all other nuclear powers combined, even Israel.)
"Why am I only allowed to criticize people who speak for Obama?"
You can criticize whomever you want. Your post implies a contradiction between Obama's position and Ford's. That becomes relevant if, and only if, they are in league on this issue. Until you provide evidence they are, you have thrown a red herring into the discussion.
Posted by: tensor on May 18, 2008 06:09 PMNo, other way around.
Please cite the Congressional vote which declared war.
You are confused. In point of fact, being "at war" does not require a declaration of war. We certainly were "at war" with France when John Adams was President, for example. You do not know what you are talking about.
Furthermore, the Third Geneva Convention always applies to prisoners taken on the battlefield, even those who do not wear uniforms of recognized states.
That is, actually, absolutely false. You do not know what you are talking about.
I was unaware that our standard for governmental behavior had become "whatever Clinton did."
It isn't. The point is not that it is acceptable, but that the Democrats have no cause to blame, in particular, Republicans or Bush for it.
Just [nuclear weapons] developed after we have enough to deter aggression [are needless].
And what makes you an expert on what is needed to deter aggression? Note that we are not discussing mere opinion here: you are saying this makes us a rogue state, so you must have some sort of objective criteria and facts to back it up. And since "deterrence" by its very nature is based on far more than just numbers and capabilities of munitions, but on motives and relationships ... well, you can't back this up. It is merely your opinion.
Your post implies a contradiction between Obama's position and Ford's.
Once again, this is false, and you cannot back it up. I implied no such thing, and nothing shows that I did. You do not know what you are talking about.
Posted by: pudge on May 18, 2008 06:54 PMQuibble with it as you may, but Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq. That IS a declaration of war.
Just because the document doesn't have the words "Declaration of War" doesn't mean it wasn't declared.
Under our constitution ONLY Congress has such authority. That is why Bush waited until Congress voted to authorize the war before sending troop across the border into Iraq.
I don't think a law degree is necessary to make such a conclusion. Just ask yourself why the House hasn't sent articles of impeachment to the Senate over the issue. It seems to me they also have reached the same conclusion.
Posted by: deadwood on May 18, 2008 07:46 PM"Furthermore, the Third Geneva Convention always applies to prisoners taken on the battlefield, even those who do not wear uniforms of recognized states."
Actually the 4th Article deals with prisoners taken on the battlefield. Here is article 4:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
The enemy combatants caught on the battlefield did not meet the requirements provided in article 4 paragrapgh 2. The fighters at not itme showed any "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" (ie Unit patches, flags of nations, or even uniformed soldiers) or did they "That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."(i.e. not using human shields, use of ambulances to transport troops, decpitating prisoners); therfore they do not fall under the perview of POW's status under the Geneva convention.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 18, 2008 10:16 PMGlad we've got that confirmed. Here I thought you were going to read our Constitution or the Congressional Record, but why should you? Neither support your assertions.
But, please, do tell: if the Constitution's definition of "war" counts for absolutely nothing, what is our basis for determining whether or not we're at war?
"The point is not that it is acceptable..."
Then does it make us a rogue state? Again, give the standards by which we define the term. A chronic refusal to follow our own Constitution would seem to qualify us for the designation.
"...Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq. That IS a declaration of war."
Wrong. Rep. Paul submitted a declaration of war, which failed to pass. Therefore, under our Constitution, we are not at war. And, even if we were at war:
"1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces."
The Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan at the time of our invasion. Therefore, every solider we captured from the Taliban fits this description.
"6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
Every person we captured during fighting in Afghanistan would fit this description. If anyone we encountered in fighting there did not "respect the laws and customs of war", I did not hear of it. In any case, the Bush Administration has not submitted any such claim to "a court of competent jurisdiction", as required by the Convention. (Thanks to TrueSoldier for the quotes, except for the last one.)
If Mr. Ford's statements were not authorized nor approved by the Obama campaign, then how are they relevant?
Wow. You think I can prove a negative with the Constitution? You give me far too much credit. It is YOUR assertion, not mine, and you can't back it up.
But, please, do tell: if the Constitution's definition of "war" counts for absolutely nothing
The Constitution has definition of war? That's news to me ... and James Madison, and the other Framers.
what is our basis for determining whether or not we're at war?
Whether we say we are. Why do we NEED such a basis? The Constitution and law do not require it.
Then does it make us a rogue state?
No.
Again, give the standards by which we define the term. A chronic refusal to follow our own Constitution would seem to qualify us for the designation.
If that's true, then the Democratic platform is a blueprint for a rogue state, as the majority of said platform encourages the violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Even I would not accuse the Democratic Party of encouraging our being a rogue nation, so no, I don't think that is a reasonable way to define it. But hey, if that is your standard, fine, but it just severely dilutes the usefulness of the term.
Wrong. Rep. Paul submitted a declaration of war, which failed to pass. Therefore, under our Constitution, we are not at war.
No. You are conflating "being at war" with "declaring war." The former does not require the latter. It never has. Look at U.S. and European history. There are many conflicts which people colloquially refer to being "at war," without war being declared. Again, our VERY FIRST war after the Revolution was an "undeclared war" with France.
That is what they called it at the time, in the 1790s -- an undeclared war -- and yet you're trying to convince us that a war must be declared? You obviously do not know what you are talking about.
"1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces."
The Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan at the time of our invasion. Therefore, every solider we captured from the Taliban fits this description.
I agree that, in the general case, Taliban soldiers are included.
"6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
Every person we captured during fighting in Afghanistan would fit this description.
Nope. That is just not true, at all. Nothing about al Qaeda's conflict with us was spontaneous, and they had plenty of time to form themselves into regular armed units: they attacked us first, as you may recall.
In any case, the Bush Administration has not submitted any such claim to "a court of competent jurisdiction", as required by the Convention.
False. This is precisely what has occurred under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
If Mr. Ford's statements were not authorized nor approved by the Obama campaign, then how are they relevant?
Well, you see, I heard him say it, and so I wrote about it, and therefore what he said is relevant to what I wrote about. How is this simple logical construction not obvious to you?
Maybe what he said is not relevant to anything YOU care about, but since when is what YOU care about the standard for anything I post about?
Posted by: pudge on May 18, 2008 11:56 PMOne problem with your argument in using Article 4. It is that Article 3 states this:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties
Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda were a High Contracting Party (or signatary)to the Geneva convention; therefore the armed conflict was not taking place in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties.
As for your question about a competent court Article 84 covers that:
"Article 84
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war. "
In other words a military court (or tribunal)would determine whether or not the detatinees would be granted POW status under the Geneva convention. The use of Military Tribunals was passed into law by Congress; therefore it is legal under the Geneva Convention.
You also earlier stated that " As we now lack an effective military, we must negotiate from a weaker position than we had back when Clinton was in charge of negotiations."
Our military is stronger now than it was during the Clinton administration. During Bush Sr's administration the military was seeing major cuts in the size of our military. This not only continued during the Clinton administrtaion, but was accelerated. During the Clinton administration only used the military twice in any kind of conflict. The first one, begun under Bush Sr's watch, was Somalia and the rules of engagement were so bad that our soldiers hands were tied. A good example of that is the begining of Black Hawk Down when the Black Hawk crew sees the Somalia warlords thugs shooting civilians to take all the UN food and supplies and the crew was told they were not given permission to engage. That happened more often then not, but only after Clinton bacame the CIC. The only other conflict would have been Bosnia/Kosvo. In that conflict we did not use ground forces much at all and the combantants, for the most part, were uniformed soldiers. So to claim that Clinton did a better job with our armed forces is unrealistic. Trying to compare Bosnia/Kosovo to the war we are in now is like comparing apples to oranges. Now if you compare Somalia to Iraq/Afghanistan then you are closer to the mark as both wars are against a Guerilla style enemy with non-uniformed combantants. The outcome of Somalia was Clinton pulling out our troops and Osama Bin Laden's famous the US is a paper tiger quote.
Here is Obama campaign's official fact check on the issue. It doesn't back up Ford's claim of preconditions. It states the concept of appropriate background work being done prior to meeting, which includes meetings at lower levels. It would be foolish just to jump on a plane and go meet with a foreign leader. As a former boss of mine was so admant in implying, completed staff work is a must, don't come to him without completed staff work.
Posted by: tc on May 19, 2008 07:22 AM"Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
It appears that he has flip-flopped on his own site.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 19, 2008 07:47 AMI quoted it exactly as he said it on the Tee Vee. And here'sthe transcript.
... then I believe he is off-script
OK. I don't really care about that part (in THIS context, anyway: you do have a very good point); what I found funny was the retreat to the "change" red herring when his back was to the wall. :-)
As Johnny Cochrane said in South Park: "Look at the crazy monkey!"
Posted by: pudge on May 19, 2008 08:06 AMI think that people are confusing pre-arrangements and pre-conditions.
Posted by: tc on May 19, 2008 04:04 PMAlso, I think comparing China to Iran is pretty silly. Iran and North Korea are better analogues, and we have had a TON of preconditions with the DRPK.
Posted by: pudge on May 19, 2008 05:09 PMIt states clearly on the website that "Bush Admin "Preconditions" Are Exactly What Need to Be Negotiated In These Meetings." This is the link that you have listed about the work through the lower level echelons. In other words in your link Sen Obama is saying he would use these meeting to set precondition; yet in the link I posted it clearly states "Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
Explain to me how I, or anyone else, is misunderstanding this. It seems clear to me that in one statement Sen. Obama says that he would meet with low level Iranian govt. officials to set preconditions for meeting with the Iranian President; yet in the other statement (both from Sen Obama's own website) says that he is the only candidate that is willing to meet with the Iranian President without any preconditions. I don't see where there can be any confusion.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 19, 2008 10:27 PM