Sunday, November 15, 2009

No Principles Whatsoever

Rudy Giuliani, 1994:

The verdict [against the first World Trade Center Bombers] ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.’

“I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead."

Giuliani, 2009:

“[Trying the "911 mastermind" in a civilian court] gives an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists and why would you want to give an advantage to the terrorists, and it poses risks for New York.”

“We wouldn’t have tried the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii.”

“I’m concerned that we no longer believe we’re at war with Islamic terrorists when they’re at war with us.”

Why the hell does anyone take this hack seriously?


Charlieopera said...

Rudy was a huge disappointment during the Republican Presidential debates and when he wore a red sweater during a Christmas Ad, I nearly upchucked my pepperoni. His sudden aversion to the trial being held in New York is partisan politics as usual; Republicans are seeking to make this a political issue and frankly Obama was silly to let them have this one. It is a lose-lose for him; God forbid something happens during the trial (pretty much anything to do with terrorism in NY) and he’ll have to wear the decision to hold it in NY around his neck. In the meantime, it becomes another hot button issue for him and the Democratic Party (and not one that is as clear as national health care—very few NY’ers are thrilled about this decision). Should the trial come off without a hitch and the “alleged criminals” found guilty, big deal. Everyone expects them to be found guilty. Everyone expects they’ll get the death penalty. It is a ballsy but not very savvy political move (which makes me wonder if it was really thought out).

I don’t like tempting fate a third time (remember there were two attempts to bring down the Twin Towers—one during a Democratic Administration and the other a Republican Administration). People died in both; a lot more during the second more successful attack (and obviously the conviction in the first trial did little to deter the second attack—remember we are dealing with fanatics). I’d prefer a military tribunal for the sake of avoiding the circus this trial will become regarding tainted versus untainted evidence; I don’t see how the case isn’t thrown out top to bottom based on how the evidence was gathered, but that isn’t what concerns me as much as the potential risk to New Yorkers and all those who traffic there. Why not hold the trial someplace else? New York has already paid twice for a ticket to the same show.

JD Rhoades said...

Actually, I had this fantasy scenario:

"The Court has e decided that the case against the Defendants must be thrown out because the evidence is irrevocably tainted. You're free to go.

Now let's see you make it to the car, motherfucker."

Charlieopera said...

That'd work fine, except I suspect we'd have to protect them to an airport and send them on their way.

I like the imagery, though.

John Purcell said...

How about "Let us escort you to a small private plane you can fly yourself. Military planes will escort you out of the country.

Oh, and could you take this package back to bin Laden with you? It's just a nice clock."

JD Rhoades said...

I like John's idea.

Gerard said...

Did you take the week off from your newspaper column or are you cheesed off they changed your last piece?