Think Progress

FLASHBACK: Giuliani Previously Praised Prosecuting Terrorists In U.S. Legal System

Filed Under: National Security

By Amanda on Jun 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

FLASHBACK: Giuliani Previously Praised Prosecuting Terrorists In U.S. Legal System»

On Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) criticized the Bush administration’s indefinite detention of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, stating that the United States can crack down on terrorists “within the constraints of our Constitution“:

And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

Regurgitating Bush’s 2004 campaign strategy, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign blasted Obama yesterday for wanting to take a “totally criminal justice approach to dealing with international terrorists.” Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said:

The real problem is [Obama] having said that in essence, the 1993 situation was really correctly handled by it’s being a criminal prosecution, and these people were incapacitated. The reality is that I think most experts on terrorism who are non-partisan would tell you that that was a terrible mistake in not recognizing the full dimension of what we were involved with.

He also added, “I’m not saying they shouldn’t have been prosecuted. But it’s the idea that it’s the be all and end all that’s the mistake.” Giuliani, however, also once praised the prosecution of the 1993 bombers, agreeing with Obama that terrorists should have to face the U.S. legal system:

– “‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ he [Giuliani] said, ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’” [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

– “[M]any who were bruised by the traumatic event were certain that no verdict by a jury or punishment by a judge will exorcise the pain and terror that remain. … Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.’” [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

– “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,” said Giuliani. [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

As hilzoy points out, the McCain campaign’s allegation that Obama wants only a criminal justice approach to terrorism is a total distortion. In fact, in August 2007, he stated, “I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.” Earlier this year when Obama proposed going aggressively after terrorists, McCain accused him of having “once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan.”

Digg It!

Update"Even in the weeks after Sept. 11, [Giuliani] framed the attacks in the language of crime, describing the hijackers as 'insane murderers' and calling for restoration of the 'rule of law.'"

Comments
32

28 Responses to “FLASHBACK: Giuliani Previously Praised Prosecuting Terrorists In U.S. Legal System”

Leftside Annie Says:

What?? Mr. Noun-Verb-9/11 adds flip-flopping to his resume?

I’m shocked.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
RUCerious Says:

You CAN perform detective/policing/surveillance activities to prevent terrorist actions, AND stay within the limits of the law and Constitution. Gimme an F, gimme an I, gimme an S, gimme another A!

What does it spell?
June 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
ralph the wonder llama Says:

Giuliani for Veep! C’mon, McSame… you know you want him.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
ralph the wonder llama Says:

RUCerious Says:
Gimme an F, gimme an I, gimme an S, gimme another A!

What does it spell?

Umm… “fisa”? Is that italian…?

OH! “FISA”! As in Foreign Intelligence Surviellance Act! I get it now!

Good one, RUC.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
hussein toasterhead Says:

Why does 1994 9iu11ani hate America?
June 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Shayne Says:

You know Trudy that if even the Republicans cared about what you have to say they might have nominated you, loser.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:

RUCerious, NOW you create the “FISA cheer”! If you had done that a few years ago, perhaps the Cheerleader In Chief, might have gotten the message. Course, that’s assuming he can spell or didn’t think it was Italian or cared.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
shoeless Says:

…the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

Two questions:

Who was President back then?

and

Is Osama bin Laden in prison yet?
June 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Zimzone Says:

Rudy, you became irrelevant in ‘03. Accept it. Be the Loser!
June 18th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Oval12345678 aka James K. Sayre Says:

“Terrorism” would seem to be in the eye of the beholder… When the Brits tried to conquer Iraq and the Kurds in the 1920s after the collapse of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, they dropped poison gases from airplanes (the first such use of WMDs airbourne) as part of their campaign. Were the Brits terrorists? Of course.

Actually, even groovy democratic USofA has a very long history of imperial colonialism with the use of military force and terror, beginning with the conquest of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines back in 1898.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
trollsbwild Says:

Flippity-floppity!
June 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
shoeless Says:

Just like a combover on a windy day.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
misshusseinmolly Says:

OMG — flip-flopping seems to be a virus, affecting only Republicans. McCain, Bush, and now Giuliani have fallen victim.

And wasn’t Kerry vilified by the right in 2004 for flip-flopping? Geez — these guys make Kerry look about as flexible as granite.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Bob Says:

In the US legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty, has the right to a fair and speedy trial, and has equal opportunity to the evidence presented, among other rights.

While using the legal system that was in place has resulted in convictions, the same cannot be said for the bush-league justice currently being used.

Did the Nazis give the Jews writ of habeas corpus or fair trials? What arguement was used to detain the Jews? Maybe that they pose a threat despite lack of evidence? Once the Jews were imprisoned, could they not let them go because they might retaliate, even though they were innocent?

I’m not comparing recent actions to the Holocaust. Although, with ‘black sites’ still in use, we don’t know the full extent of what goes on. I’m just wondering how Hitler’s actions were justified compared to the logic of going against the Constitution and basic principles of the United States of America (such as the right to a fair trial, etc.). Can you simply replace the word ‘Jew’ with ‘terrorist’ and not chage the context of the rhetoric?
June 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
shoeless Says:

Bob Says:
——————————————————————————–

In the US legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty…

In the Republican legal system, one is guilty.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Paul W Says:

Regurgitating Bush’s 2004 campaign strategy, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign blasted Obama yesterday for wanting to take a “totally criminal justice approach to dealing with international terrorists.”

McCain is using a strawman with “totally criminal justice approach…” This has nothing to do with following the rule of law regarding the prosecution detainees, which is not only morally and legally correct, but also the most effective way of dealing with the problem. Whenever we’ve stepped outside the bounds of decency, we’ve effectively recruited additional terrorists.

http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 18th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
leftcoast Says:

Street gangs are the next target of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. The premise is that terrorist organizations are funding themselves through illegal drug activity run by street gangs.
It is only a matter of time before the investigative and detention methods applied to the “war on terror” will be visiting the street of South Central L.A. They may have to expand GITMO.
It won’t belong before the stripping of our Constitution visits the general public who, like sheep, say “it doesn’t effect me”.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:

rogerX2, are you now afraid to give your opinion on anything and are you going to keep on acting as if you are setting up the thread with your cut and paste posts?
June 18th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
hussein toasterhead Says:

rogerse Says:

http://obama.senate.gov/ speech/ 060928-remarks_of_sena_9/

June 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Nice cherrypick. Now let’s try putting that quote in context:

In the five years that the President’s system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we’re here today.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question.

Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus - the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance - one single chance - to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.

But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists.
…

I’ve heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts, and not federal judges, who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that. The problem is that the structure of the military proceedings has been poorly thought through. Indeed, the regulations that are supposed to be governing administrative hearings for these detainees, which should have been issued months ago, still haven’t been issued. Instead, we have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court.

This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism. I know the President came here today and was insisting that this is supposed to be our primary concern. He’s absolutely right it should be our primary concern - which is why we should be approaching this with a somberness and seriousness that this Administration has not displayed with this legislation.

Now, let me be clear - for those who plot terror against the United States, I hope God has mercy on their soul, because I certainly do not. And for those who our government suspects of terror, I support whatever tools are necessary to try them and uncover their plot.

But we also know that some have been detained who have no connection to terror whatsoever. We’ve already had reports from the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo shouldn’t have been there - as one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal, “Sometimes, we just didn’t get the right folks.” And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria, and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information.

In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence. They may remain locked away forever.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
RUCerious Says:

toasty, nice WHACK on the R2DumbToo troll. Nothing like some context to cream that twerp.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
hussein toasterhead Says:

rogerse Says:

That still doesn’t invalidate what he said in the paragraph I quoted, how about adressing it.

June 18th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
______

No, it doesn’t invalidate what he said. It invalidates the point you were trying to make, which is that Senator Obama supported the current military tribunal kangaroo court system versus giving fair trials to detainees with the right of habeus corpus.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The Shadow Says:

Of course Judy Ghoulioni is going to flip flop on this issue because John “Flip-Flop” McChange changed his position just days after meeting with big oil CEOs in Texas. They gave him his new position and he expressed it regardless of the fact that he had been opposed to it for years. If John McChange gets elected not only will he be a third term for Bush, but he too will be run by big business and industry.

How do you know what the Republican nominee stands for? It’s simple just ask any big company CEO and he’ll tell you what he ordered the nominee to stand for. Any Republican President is basically an empty vessle who waits for orders from the rightwing nuts, big business, and special interests. Rudy is for McChange because he will make even more money for his company when McChange gives them federal no bid contacts to spy on the American people. This guy is nothing more than a low life bloodsucker who blows with the wind.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Above the Clouds Says:

Remind me again what our leaders did BEFORE 9-11 to keep Americans safe? What did Guiliani do to keep Ground Zero and all New Yorkers safe in the days following 9-11?
June 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Max-1 Says:

.

Mr Julie-Annie was for legal prosecution of detainees before he was against it.

.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
piltdown Says:

Earlier this year when Obama proposed going aggressively after terrorists, McCain accused him of having “once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan.”

————-

Like the Bush administration just did a bit ago?

IOKIYAR!
June 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
citizen_pain Says:

I don’t know what annoys me more; McCain’s “My Friends”, or Rudy’s “The Reality is”…
June 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Oval12345678 aka James K. Sayre Says:

Let’s no even mention the fact that about half of the original detainees in Guantanamo Bay Prison were sold by Afghanistan war lords to the US invaders. Terrorists? No, just a few hundred poor and unlucky guys living in Afghanistan… They have been held for five years without even any legal charges being brought against them. This situation is absurd and grotesque. The Bush gangsters act live medieval Kings of the 9th century, AD. Barbaric. And four fascists on the Supreme Court voted to continue this Bush barbarism? Grotesque beyond belief…
June 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
katy Says:

here it is… i’ve been outside working in the beautiful high 70s, low humidity weather these past days… yesterday i heard this exchange - or thought i heard it and wasn’t sure until i could check the transcript today… taking a break, i found it -
from Race to the White House with david gregory, simulcast on RACHEL MADDOW’s show on AirAmericaRadio:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let‘s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center—we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Well, they are not all currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. There was a factual error there. The McCain campaign is jumping all over this, saying that that‘s a gaffe, and also pointing to the fact that in June of 1998, 10 years ago, it was the anniversary of Osama bin Laden‘s indictment and he is still on the loose.

GREGORY: All right. We‘re going to pick up on this as we get into “Three Questions,” the big picture question and debate over the war on terror.

well, i don’t recall that they ever got back to it…

but, is that true??? they are NOT incarcerated???

this may have been covered, but my skimming the thread did not pick it up, and i haven’t been reading the comments…

but, REALLY???
June 18th, 2008 at 5:16 pm