Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro, Kelly Paice and Ali Weinberg
With Attorney General Eric Holder testifying on Capitol Hill today, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will take his shots on a conference call sponsored by the Republican National Committee (as we mentioned in First Thoughts today.)

But Rudy's hot rhetoric today is a far cry from his stance in 1994 after the verdict in the World Trade Center bombing trial.

The New York Times wrote on March 5, 1994: "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.'"

And: "It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world, that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated," Giuliani said.

And from a 2006 Hardball interview about Zacarias Moussaoui not getting the death penalty: 2006: Giuliani on Moussaoui not getting death penalty:

“Yes, I'm disappointed. I believe that the death penalty was appropriate in this case, should have been applied. But then at the same time -- and maybe this is like the contradictory, complex feelings we all have about September 11 and everything that's come from it. At the same time, I have tremendous respect for our legal system. Maybe there is something good that comes out of this in showing these people that -- at least showing the ones that have any kind of an open mind that we are a free society, a lawful society ... that we have respect for people's rights and that we can have disagreements about whether the death penalty should be imposed on somebody like Moussaoui."

So, Mr. Mayor, what's changed?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 30565.aspx

Is there a bigger asshat candidate than Rudy? Palin-Guiliani 2012

I don't want the trial in NY because of one reason: its going to F up traffic and security and its going to cost the government 100000 times more to do it in NY then it would to do it in the middle of Kansas.

Who gives a crap where the trial is held. Doing anything in NY is a logistical nightmare.

Appaholic wrote:From NBC's Domenico Montanaro, Kelly Paice and Ali Weinberg
With Attorney General Eric Holder testifying on Capitol Hill today, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will take his shots on a conference call sponsored by the Republican National Committee (as we mentioned in First Thoughts today.)

But Rudy's hot rhetoric today is a far cry from his stance in 1994 after the verdict in the World Trade Center bombing trial.

The New York Times wrote on March 5, 1994: "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.'"

And: "It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world, that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated," Giuliani said.

And from a 2006 Hardball interview about Zacarias Moussaoui not getting the death penalty: 2006: Giuliani on Moussaoui not getting death penalty:

“Yes, I'm disappointed. I believe that the death penalty was appropriate in this case, should have been applied. But then at the same time -- and maybe this is like the contradictory, complex feelings we all have about September 11 and everything that's come from it. At the same time, I have tremendous respect for our legal system. Maybe there is something good that comes out of this in showing these people that -- at least showing the ones that have any kind of an open mind that we are a free society, a lawful society ... that we have respect for people's rights and that we can have disagreements about whether the death penalty should be imposed on somebody like Moussaoui."

So, Mr. Mayor, what's changed?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 30565.aspx

Is there a bigger asshat candidate than Rudy? Palin-Guiliani 2012

None springs immediately to mind.

danefan wrote:I don't want the trial in NY because of one reason: its going to F up traffic and security and its going to cost the government 100000 times more to do it in NY then it would to do it in the middle of Kansas.

Who gives a crap where the trial is held. Doing anything in NY is a logistical nightmare.

So when the defense attorney asks for a change of venue how are they going to deny it?

The decision to do this trial in civilian court will cost Obama a 2nd term.

HI54UNI wrote:

danefan wrote:I don't want the trial in NY because of one reason: its going to F up traffic and security and its going to cost the government 100000 times more to do it in NY then it would to do it in the middle of Kansas.

Who gives a crap where the trial is held. Doing anything in NY is a logistical nightmare.

So when the defense attorney asks for a change of venue how are they going to deny it?

The decision to do this trial in civilian court will cost Obama a 2nd term.

agree

HI54UNI wrote:

danefan wrote:I don't want the trial in NY because of one reason: its going to F up traffic and security and its going to cost the government 100000 times more to do it in NY then it would to do it in the middle of Kansas.

Who gives a crap where the trial is held. Doing anything in NY is a logistical nightmare.

So when the defense attorney asks for a change of venue how are they going to deny it?

The decision to do this trial in civilian court will cost Obama a 2nd term.

They won't be able to deny it I don't think. One of the questions that will be asked of every jury member wil be: "Did you know someone who died in the 9/11 attacks?" If I were the defense attorney I would argue if they answer "yes" they should be stricken for cause and removed from the pool. It will take them months to find enough people to answer "no" to that question in NY.

I'm not so sure its a good move to try this in a military court though. There are ramifications to acknowleding Al Queda as an organized military, aren't there? I thought there were reasons we refused to acknowledge that.

danefan wrote:...

I'm not so sure its a good move to try this in a military court though. There are ramifications to acknowledging Al Queda as an organized military, aren't there? I thought there were reasons we refused to acknowledge that.

Interesting thought. Lay out the case for us, please?

native wrote:

danefan wrote:...

I'm not so sure its a good move to try this in a military court though. There are ramifications to acknowledging Al Queda as an organized military, aren't there? I thought there were reasons we refused to acknowledge that.

Interesting thought. Lay out the case for us, please?

I can't make the case. I'm asking if there are negative ramifications to acknowleding it. Once you label them an official military force, don't we have to apply international conventions to them? Capture, tactics, etc?

Have we ever tried opposing military troops in military trials before? The Nuremberg trials were done in the International military tribunal. Not in ours.

Appaholic wrote:...So, Mr. Mayor, what's changed?...

Is there a bigger asshat candidate than Rudy? Palin-Guiliani 2012

What has changed? Among other considerations, several thousand deaths of innocent civilians in the twin towers and several years of war.

Yes, there are bigger asshats than Giuliani - the critics in the stands.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

-Theodore Roosevelt

danefan wrote:

native wrote:
Interesting thought. Lay out the case for us, please?

I can't make the case. I'm asking if there are negative ramifications to acknowleding it. Once you label them an official military force, don't we have to apply international conventions to them? Capture, tactics, etc?

Have we ever tried opposing military troops in military trials before? The Nuremberg trials were done in the International military tribunal. Not in ours.

I could be wrong, but I do not think you have to label an enemy combatant as part of an "official military force" to treat them as an enemy combatant.

native wrote:

Appaholic wrote:...So, Mr. Mayor, what's changed?...

Is there a bigger asshat candidate than Rudy? Palin-Guiliani 2012

What has changed? Among other considerations, several thousand deaths of innocent civilians in the twin towers and several years of war.

Yes, there are bigger asshats than Giuliani - the critics in the stands.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

-Theodore Roosevelt

So we can't criticize Guiliani for being an opportunistic political hack who self-serving vocal non-support of this decision is entirely counter to his stated position when Moussawi was being tried in civilian court?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. - Ronald Reagan

Appaholic wrote:

native wrote:
What has changed? Among other considerations, several thousand deaths of innocent civilians in the twin towers and several years of war.

Yes, there are bigger asshats than Giuliani - the critics in the stands.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

-Theodore Roosevelt

So we can't criticize Guiliani for being an opportunistic political hack who self-serving vocal non-support of this decision is entirely counter to his stated position when Moussawi was being tried in civilian court?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. - Ronald Reagan

Sure you can, but on a personal note, your hyperbolic generalizations are worse than mine.

native wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
So we can't criticize Guiliani for being an opportunistic political hack who self-serving vocal non-support of this decision is entirely counter to his stated position when Moussawi was being tried in civilian court?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. - Ronald Reagan

Sure you can, but on a personal note, your hyperbolic generalizations are worse than mine.

that we are both subject to hyperbolic generalizations is something we can agree upon..

Appaholic wrote:

native wrote:
Sure you can, but on a personal note, your hyperbolic generalizations are worse than mine.

that we are both subject to hyperbolic generalizations is something we can agree upon..

For cryin' out loud, we ought to be able to agree on a hell of a lot more than that!

native wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
that we are both subject to hyperbolic generalizations is something we can agree upon..

For cryin' out loud, we ought to be able to agree on a hell of a lot more than that!

Of course we do....like Red's is a wonderful place to drink & the MoClub makes a heluva burger.. ..hate I wasn't there to enjoy it with you...

Appaholic wrote:

native wrote:
For cryin' out loud, we ought to be able to agree on a hell of a lot more than that!

Of course we do....like Red's is a wonderful place to drink & the MoClub makes a heluva burger.. ..hate I wasn't there to enjoy it with you...

Yup, but we can do even better than that!