Why would major "news" outfits, like ABC, CNN or FOX, invite Rudy Giuliani to come to their Sunday shows, yesterday, and answer questions about the Obama administration's decision to try five 9-11 conspirators in New York City?
What possible information, what opinions, could Giuliani hold in his freaky little head that might justify ABC, CNN and FOX's invite? Rudy holds no office, hasn't been mayor of New York for quite some time, and made a national embarassment out of himself with his "noun, verb and 9-11" presidential primary campaign in 2008….the campaign he strategized so brilliantly by running in only one state, Florida.
Giuliani's appearance as some kind of "expert opinionator" about 9-11, of course, is laughable. Rudy Giuliani, on 9-11, was shrewd enough to get himself in front of the cameras,…but that's the extent of his knowledge or expertise on terrorism.
Rudy's recommendation to George W. Bush of Bernard Kerik to be Homeland Security Director is all one needs to know about Rudy's judgment. Kerik was convicted of a felony just a few days ago and sentenced to prison.
But there he was….Mr. 9-11….on ABC, CNN and FOX yesterday…..the slumped-back freak, in all his freakish glory, criticizing President Obama's decision to hold trials of terrorists in New York City.
"It's an unnecessary advantage to give to the terrorists," Giuliani said on CNN's State of the Union. "I don't know why you want to give terrorists advantages. And secondly, it's an unnecessary risk to the city of New York, which already has any number of risks."
The same guy who said that…also said this in 2006 about trying 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussauoi in federal court .
Several news show hosts called Giuliani out on some apparent hypocrisy — in 2006, he praised the civilian trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying he was "in awe of our system" and that we "are a nation of law."
For federal court trials until he was against them.
But think about what Mr. Noun & Verb & 9-11 said yesterday on CNN. If we bring the five 9-11 conspirators to trial in New York City, we are giving the "terrorists" an "unnecessary advantage." Trying those five in New York City federal court is putting New York under "unnecessary risk."
Bringing international anarchist criminals to justice following the template of American law, is giving "unnecessary advantage" to Islamic radicals. In other words,….according to Giuliani…we must forsake our own laws and history of following those laws, because if we follow American law and order, we will give extremists the "advantage."
WTF?
Suicide bombers carry out violent acts which kill civilians in order to scare the host country's government into CHANGING the way they live and carry out their system of government.
Rudy Giuliani says the U.S. must not rely on the U.S. legal system to try the five conspirators, the same system Rudy praised in the trial of Moussauoi,…..because if we follow our own legal system and precedence…..we'll be giving the extremists, "unnecessary advantage."
Rudy is now too scared of the U.S. justice system to trust it. That's no small detail.
Not only has Giuliani given up on the U.S. justice system's ability to adjudicate crimes and lock away criminals…he's, apparently, given up on New York City's ability to protect it's citizens too. Trying suspects of a horrific crime in one of our cities is now putting that city's residents under "unnecessary risk."
I guess that means that from now on if a significantly horrible enough crime is committed inside the U.S….we can no longer trust our court system to deal with it. Rudy, by making these statements, is announcing his agreement with Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden has said America needs to change it's system of government and that Americans have become "soft." Rudy Giuliani agrees.
Giuliani, as I mentioned, is a freak. The question naturally arises….why would what Rudy has to say be significant to Americans? I can't answer that question. I keep coming up with, "it isn't." CNN, ABC and FOX believe otherwise. The Villagers, don't forget, are very, very Serious.
One last backhand……if we try criminals in federal courts, find them guilty and execute or imprison them…..then, according to Rudy, we're playing Aladdin to those who wage "Islamic war against us"……
"Since when are we in the business of granting the wishes of terrorists?"
You know what I'm thinking?…..I'm thinking that Rudy Giuliani is full of sh*t.
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
Of course there are basic differences in the arrest of Moussauoi and the apprehension of KSM that you purposely omit. And of course your premise that Giuliani has no insight into terrorism and NYC is laughably preposterous. The Machine puts you into such humiliating positions, Reverend. Snap out of it.
Do you honestly think that the months that trials will take will not act as a magnet for every muslim nutjob? Do you honestly think that the city of NY can provide the security necessary to protect the public day in and day out as these terrorists (who should have been shot long ago as non-uniformed enemy combatants) are chauffeured back and forth through NYC. Barry the liar should be held responsible for each and every civilian and law enforcement officer put at risk for his foolish grandstand play.
Gitmo and military tribunals are the place for these terrorists. Not a civilian court where an ACLU lawyer can quite possibly get one or more of these killers off on a technicality that does not exist in military court.
And dont give me any crap about having held anyone at gitmo for up to 8 yrs, they are involved in a declared war, and as such can be held until the end of the conflict according to the geneva convention. And as far as I can tell, Islamic Terrorism has yet to surrender.
Now then for your rant, did Rudy contact the so called news outlets, or did they contact him for comment?
Moussaoui was picked up in the U.S……KSM was handed over after having been picked up in Pakistan. Now what's the difference again?
Yes, I honestly am not one bit afraid or anxious that New York law enforcement and the U.S. Marshals can handle such a task. It's been done several times before, without incident. What in the world are naysayers afraid of?
Let me ask this….since when does America declare war on individuals…or even a group of individuals? What the heck difference does it make that Bin Laden "declared war" on the U.S.? What country does he represent?
Good question on who contacted Rudy to go on teevee. I would speculate that after Rudy appeared on FOX and Fiends Friday…..the other, you know, "liberal" stations were too afraid not to follow suit……might get accused of not giving wingnuts equal time and all.
Why is it that many conservatives distrust the U.S. system of jurisprudence? Have conservatives given up on America? What it sounds like is that conservatives are now questioning the very foundation of the U.S. way of life. In spite of how many times it's been repeated, nothing changed after 9-11. We are still the same nation governed by the same Constitution and set of laws.
On this topic….this is worth reading….
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/11/a_lot_of_people_–.php#more?ref=fpblg
And this…
"Former Republican Congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, have teamed up to urge the Gitmo detainees be taken to the U.S.
"The scaremongering about these issues should stop," Barr, Keene and Norquist wrote.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/conservatives-say-gitmo-detainees-would-be-fine-in-il-prison-warn-gop-of-scaremongering.php?ref=mp
We dont mistrust the system, but when OJ can go free, we wonder.
You really think this is the same as any other murder trial?
With our porous borders, you dont think that some of OBL's followers wont welcome the chance to martyr themselves?
Has any nation, been able to stop a determined bomber from striking?
Were does it say who we as a nation can declare war on, we declared war on drugs, and they arent even alive, we declared war on poverty, and we cant win that one with the liberal policies of the past, so why cant we declare war on a demented and delusional religious fringe group that has attacked our nation and our citizens for decades, and who has tried to enslave the west for 1000 yrs.
At least with every jihadist that dies, 100's or even thousands of innocent lives are saved.
You can not really be saying that the potential for disaster is so small, and the risk to innocent people is acceptable?
And this….
"What happened to the right wing swagger? When did they turn into such a bunch of scared wimps? When did they go from standing there in the rubble with George Bush and his megaphone to hiding under Dick Cheney’s desk cowering in fear?
Personally, I can’t think of anything more defiant than taking KSM, frog-marching him through Manhattan, giving him a fair trial, and then sending him to prison forever or executing him. That is how you show the terrorists that we aren’t going to be fazed.
For goodness sakes, right wingers. Man up for a change. I honestly think I liked the belligerent cowboy right-wingers better than the diaper-clad bed-wetters we have now."
Word.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=29883
"You can not really be saying that the potential for disaster is so small, and the risk to innocent people is acceptable?"
Yes, I can…and I am.
war on drugs, poverty, etc……were simply political slogans….just like war on terror.
Declarations of war are outlined in our Constitution….and there's nothing there referring to non-state players.
Appreciate the comment, Jeff…however…."We don't mistrust the system, but when OJ can go free, we wonder"……sounds a little like mistrust of the system.
The Rev doesn't understand why the media might want to interview Giuliani, who was the mayor of NYC on 9/11. Big DUH. That doesn't even require a response.
And what's this bs about "cowering in fear" ? That doesn't have anything to do with anything. The point is, we should be doing what's smart with KSM and company, and bringing them to NYC isn't too smart. It's unnecessary.
But since were going down stupidity road by bringing KSM to NYC, I have to say, even if KSM would somehow be found not guilty, which is highly unlikely, Obama and Holder aren't going to let him go. In that case, they'll find other charges to hold him with. If they are even slightly smart, they won't charge him with all his terrorist crimes at once. They should probably hold Daniel Pearl, the Pentagon, and his other crimes in reserve just in case, and just try him for the WTC. Because America isn't going to ever let KSM go free under any circumstances, that only proves further what a grandstanding move this is on Obama's part.
Frog marching, kangaroo court, etc., etc., all for political grandstanding purposes, Reverend.
Good job democrats, look at you!
Here's Obama from earlier this year:
"When this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again."
Obama admits those like KSM are prisoners of war who will not be released, so why try them in civilian court ? The military commissions were designed specifically for this purpose. This makes no sense to me.
Obama's always got to blow it with "let me repeat," "this is not just lip service," "I want this to be perfectly clear," or some other ridiculous statement that lets everyone know he's lying. He just can't help himself.
St. Rudy's lousy 9/11 record
http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/210734
Thanks for the trip in the time machine, jimmy, but who cares ?
larry,
Almost everything Obama says is just lip service. I don't remember a President who lied this much. You can't take him at his word for much of anything. In Obama's own words, it's "just campaign rhetoric," and Obama is always campaigning.
I don't agree with Obama and Holder's tribunal concept…it's totally unAmerican. And I don't agree with Obama and Holder's trying of some detainees in civilian courts and others in military courts. Most definitely, the quote King includes, I disagree with entirely.
Obama is making many mistakes in his segregation of detainees into groups to be tried in different venues…and he most certainly is wrong about detaining some indefinitely.
But where Obama is not making a mistake is in bringing the five guys to New York to be tried.
For conservatives to argue for the sake of arguing that it's too risky to try those 5 detainees inside the U.S…….is just another attempt to diminish and delegitimize a Democratic president. Nothing more. That's why FOX led the way on this issue.
Would it not be just as effective to frog march KSM across Gitmo, in front of a brigade of Marines in full dress including side arms, into a military court room full of generals in full regalia, read the charges, read the confession, and frog march him right out to a firing squad.
No of course not, the element of danger is not there, the 100's of civilians killed by terrorists trying to free KSM wont be there. Foolish foolish man, both you and Barry the liar.
But then what you liberals secretly want is for terrorists like KSM to go free, so you can use the trial as another way to Bash Bush and the war on terror.
Rev,
Once again, you didn't deal with my point. The point was, KSM IS NOT GOING TO GO FREE, period. Because he isn't going to go free, that makes bringing him to NYC nothing but a show trial, an unnecessary circus. KSM has already confessed, and is proud of his actions. He WANTS to trumpet them in open court, and Obama is going to let him. It's inane.
But keep prattling on about Fox News if you wish.
Guantanomo needs to be closed. Those who have been charged and are being held there need to have their day in court. For decades the U.S. never had a problem trying anyone. But even though it didn't….Bush/Cheney neo-cons branded into many gullible conservatives brains that "everything has changed after 9-11."
There is no war…thus, no prisoners of war. Not once has a conservative been able to demonstrate that America is at war. Those being detained must be tried in U.S. courts or set free. Anything else would mean that the U.S. had abandoned everything it says it stands for….you know, those "freedoms" Bush said "they" hated us over.
Rev,
Here's why the right doesn't want a public trial.
1. KSM's first interrogator has stated that KSM was spilling his guts before the torture sessions. Holder's confidence indicates that he's not relying on info obtained through torture. Ergo, a conviction will demonstrate that torture was unnecessary and highlight it as the war crime it is.
2. It will provide a forum for understanding that we were attacked not because "they hate our freedoms" but because we underwrite not only Israel's brutal apartheid of the Palestinians, but every despot in the Arab world with oil.
3. As such, our neverending "war on terror" will be exposed as fraudulently counterproductive to our security.
Precisely.
This isn't about closing Guantanamo. I'm not accepting subject changes today.
Rev says, "There is no war…thus, no prisoners of war. Not once has a conservative been able to demonstrate that America is at war."
Sooo, you never heard of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, the war on terror, Al Qaeda's declaration of war, Al Qaeda's numerous attacks in that war, the jihadist movement, etc……
Calling you clueless is an insult to the clueless. I simply don't have the words to describe your brand of inanity any longer.
Calm down….I know you get upset when you have no idea what you're talking about…..but it's cool…..
There are military operations in Iraq and Af-Pak…no question. But there is NO declaration of war against any nation. None. Therefore, there can be no prisoners of war, and no need to have Guantanamo.
al-Qaeda, jihadists…whatever you want to call them, they are a tiny international gang of crazy criminals. Spain, England, Germany…have already held trials, and they weren't afraid enough to distrust their own legal system.
There is a Congressional Authorization for the Use Of Military Force for both Iraq and Afghanistan. That's your declaration of war. What does it feel like to live in such deep denial, Rev ?
But since you brought it up, we don't have an authorization for war in Pakistan, but you'll have to take that up with your hero, Obama. Why aren't you calling him a war criminal and demanding his impeachment ???
I don't distrust our legal system. I'm perfectly fine with trying KSM and company with constitutional military tribunals, which we've spent years setting up. Obama is fine with them too. Holder is fine with them. The Supreme Court is fine with them. Congress is fine with them.
Keep slinging it, buddy. Maybe someday you'll convince some poor uninformed schlub to believe you.
That's no declaration of war per the Constitution.
I disagree with Obama's dealings, thus far, in Af-Pak….but he hasn't done anything that Bush wasn't doing already. Bush/Cheney lied about everything….at least Obama is not doing that. Military tribunals are a disgrace, given what's happened.
It seems racist to insist on calling it Af-Pak, Reverend. I know all those folks might 'look alike' to you, but there are two soveriegn countries and separate cultures involved.
Good comeback……mistaken….but a good comeback.
I'm hearing – when Bush gets authorization for war from Congress, that's not a war, and Bush should be tried as a war criminal.
But when Obama launches attacks in Pakistan, with no authorization from Congress at all, that excusable.
That's what makes you the Reverend, and why everyone laughs at your illogic.
But the Reverend now claims Pakistan is a province of Afghanistan, King. That means there's no need for authorization to bomb villages there.
Show me where Bush had authorization for war against Iraq.
The resolution was for the purpose of removing Hussein and included the lie of disarming him of stuff he didn't have. No war. None, Nada.
Same with Afghanistan. No war….just a resolution to round up the 9-11 people and those who belong to Bin Laden's group.
You bought the bull…..repeating it now won't change the fact that it is still bull.