Former New York City Mayor and failed GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani made the rounds on the Sunday news shows today, slamming the Obama administration for the recently-announced civilian trials for suspected 9/11 conspirators that will be held in New York City.
Giuliani said the detainees -- who are now being held at Gitmo -- should be subject to military trials ("They were good enough for Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt.") and not civilian trials in New York.
"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."
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."
Giuliani tried to deflect that line of questioning by saying military tribunals are the preferred alternative for the current crop of suspects.
The former mayor said multiple times this morning that the trials pose a risk to New York -- "Of course it's going to create more security concerns," he said on Fox News Sunday -- but also pushed that the civilian trials somehow show that the White House doesn't understand the "war on terror."
"What the Obama administration is telling us loud and clear is that both in substance and reality, the war on terror, from their point of view, is over," Giuliani said. "We're no longer gonna treat these people as if this were an act of war."
This is the administration that told us there was no war on terror. The only problem is, the terrorists seem to believe there is a war on us.
Giuliani also claimed that Obama was doing a favor to the Guantanamo detainees by bringing them to New York, saying on Fox News that "this gives all the benefits to the terrorists and much less benefit to the public."
"Since when are we in the business of granting the wishes of terrorists?" he said, adding that "this seems to be an over concern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern for the rights of the public."
As more supposed proof of how the administration doesn't understand the "war on terror," Giuliani pointed to the Fort Hood shootings, in which Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is suspected in an attack that killed 13 and wounded many more.
"This whole thing with Major Hasan is another indication that he doesn't get it," Giuliani said of Obama. "He doesn't get that there was an Islamic war against us."
On ABC's This Week, Giuliani said the Fort Hood shooting was "clearly a terrorist attack in the name of Islamic terrorism" and that like the 9/11 attack, "these are acts of war."
Asked about Sarah Palin -- whose much anticipated memoir comes out this week -- Giuliani said on CNN that Palin "is great for the Republican Party."
This is a person who creates great enthusiasm for the party.
On This Week, Giuliani said "there's something extra-special that Sarah Palin has."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

CT Voter
November 15, 2009 12:50 PM
I guess it's a positive sign that some actually tried to call Rudy "Noun, Verb and 9/11" Giuliani out on hypocrisy, but I still don't understand why Republicans have no faith in law and order?
Oh, and whatever happened to not criticizing the President while he was on foreign soil?
Hmmmm?
Never mind. Everything is ok if you're a Republican. Everything. And the press just enables this bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cato's Ghost
November 15, 2009 1:09 PM in reply to CT Voter
CT - as usual, the left has it backwards - the rule is for politicians not to criticize the President when they are on foreign soil, not vice versa.
And it is obscene to assert that Bush et al ignored any of the intelligence before 911 - for the simple reason that NONE of it was actionable. No one, incl Clarke, gave any indication of where or when an attack may occur, they only knew there was "chatter."
Why not face facts - it's the Clinton administration that has blood on its hands. Bill Clinton ignored the 1993 attacks, never bothering to visit or to treat them as acts of terror (this is inarguable). He also ignored the string of escalating attacks during his term, absurdly put all his attention on the Palestinian "peace process" as the "root cause" of problems, intentionally raised the bar that prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing information (and which was the reason no one was legally able to "connect the dots" before 911), and of course failed to give the order to pull the trigger when the CIA had OBL in its sights. GWB had a helluva mess to clean up left over from the wreckage of the Clinton administration, and he did a pretty good job. The world is clearly in better shape now than on 1/20/01 when he took office.
And no this isn't a Republican talking, just a libertarian-minded independent with an active brain and an ability to face facts. You should try it some time, instead of spewing ludicrous talking points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
November 15, 2009 1:24 PM in reply to Cato's Ghost
Just what part of "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" do you not grasp? And what part of "...you've covered your ass..."?
What, that's only for you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Russell
November 15, 2009 1:34 PM in reply to Cato's Ghost
You cant be that stupid!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
November 15, 2009 1:46 PM in reply to Cato's Ghost
"Ability to face facts". I don't see that ability in your response. To skip over the Bush Administration and attach blame for 9/11 on the Clinton Administration is evidence of an ability to deny reality. Particularly the reality of the briefing in August about bin Laden. But whatever.
You are correct about my error though. It's inappropriate when politicians travel to foreign nations and criticize the President. Except, however, when those politicians are Republicans (see Cantor, Huckabee, Palin).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Watcher
November 15, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to Cato's Ghost
Bush and company ignored the various CIA reports of an attack. Hell GWB spent the first part of that year on vacation ignoring pretty much everything as he tried to figure out how to prove he was President (anyone else remember that election that Al Gore won?). So that goes to show how much GWB cared about protecting the United States. Remember him sitting on his butt reading when the attacks occurred and the look on his face when he was told about the first tower? I never will forget it. That moment was the defining moment of this decade. A dumbfounded look of confusion...
GWB inherited a country with a huge government surplus, a booming economy and a few very pissed off enemies which have been brooding about the US since the first Arab Israeli war. He blew the worlds economy with his laxing of the bank laws, screwed the pooch with 9/11 and declared war on Iraq based on BS facts that Cheney created for the press.
But lets stick to Rudy and his GOP cronies, since they are the news today.
For a man who wanted to be President Rudy doesn't seem to know much about the Constitution (hell as a Canadian I think I know it better than he does, because I actually look at it quite often to see what the heck my American buddies are talking about).
Here's what it says about trials (Article 3); The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. **and lets not forget the 6th Amendment 'Right to a Speedy Trial and confrontation with witnesses' which if this keeps dragging on will surely be jumped on by some conniving lawyer as a reason for releasing those scumbags if it gets delayed much longer.
So President Obama is actually following the Constitution, something GWB ignored, by trying those people involved in the 9/11 attacks in New York State. This should have been done in 2002 but GWB was preparing for the launch of his attacks on Iraq and he couldn't be bothered with following the Constitution.
So in other words; President Obama is doing his job; which is to protect, and follow, the United States Constitution, and Rudy and his GOP cronies; are ignoring it and worse; insulting him for following it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
November 15, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Cato's Ghost
I would laugh except that it isn't funny. Do you like having your head up your ass? They ignored Clarke's warning about Alqaida, and "flying planes into buildings," and everything else they could possibly ignore.
I would conclude it was incompetence, like everything else in their 8 long years, but I'm not sure it wasn't intentional to give them an excuse (although a bogus one) for their "war of necessity."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarkOfOhio
November 16, 2009 7:16 AM in reply to Cato's Ghost
Wow, what a clueless comment. "Face facts", indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
November 16, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to Cato's Ghost
I would like to see some further evidence that your brain is active - insufficient data at this point, but keep at it, something might show up !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
November 15, 2009 12:53 PM
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld gave an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists in August 2001 when they ignored Richard Clarke and the CIA agent worried about an imminent attack by al Qaeda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
November 15, 2009 12:59 PM
"This is a person who creates great enthusiasm for the party."
"there's something extra-special that Sarah Palin has."
Which is the willingness to abandon her friends, supporters and constituents when she sees an opportunity to advance her own brand.
She supported a third party candidate in NY23, causing the GOP candidate to drop out and the first Democrat to be elected there since 1872.
She is only loyal to herself and is willing to throw anyone under the bus who gets in her way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 15, 2009 1:14 PM in reply to jeffgee
She is running for President right now; don't believe those who say she is really running for senior statesman's position or some baloney.
I lost all faith in American voters when they began saying in 2000 that Bush was the interesting guy to have a beer with. Anybody that totally stupid can never been trusted. And a huge number of Americans cannot be trusted to NOT SUPPORT Palin in an election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
November 15, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to jeffgee
I read the "something extra-special that Sarah Palin has" as "she gives the entire Republican hierarchy a bigger boner than a tax cut for the rich".
But that's just me...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
November 15, 2009 1:48 PM in reply to Matt Jones
No it's not just you.
It's reminiscent of Rich "Starbursts" Lowry's "reaction" to Palin in the debate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
November 15, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to CT Voter
If Sarah Palin looked like Laura Bush she would be back in Alaska screwing that state as governor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
November 15, 2009 1:04 PM
GOPers like Giuliani are so bent on attacking the president they are not willing to wait for the military to finish its investigation! I saw his interviews this morning and he said so many things that were just false that I almost threw something at my brand new flat screen! The GOP is desperate to turn this into a terrorist thing because then they can say see, Obama wasn't able to "keep us safe"! For then everything is a partisan, everything is political and everything is just another excuse to bash the President!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 15, 2009 1:17 PM in reply to celldumceen
Yes. They'd love for somebody to escape or be set free, and even if not, Obama has now endangered American families, blah-blah (oh, and he's black, too).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
November 15, 2009 1:09 PM
Rudy G and his neo ilk are anti-government cowards bowing before TEH MAGICKS of terrorist masterminds, rending their garments in fear (and rending the Constitution because of it). What other conclusions are there (...well...okay, there's that whole thing about possibly outing the whole neo sado-lust for torturing folks that he and his fellow cowards fear...).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
November 15, 2009 1:13 PM
GOPers like Giuliani are so bent on attacking the president they are not willing to wait for the military to finish its investigation! I saw his interviews this morning and he said so many things that were just false that I almost threw something at my brand new flat screen! The GOP is desperate to turn this into a terrorist thing because then they can say see, Obama wasn't able to "keep us safe"! For then everything is a partisan, everything is political and everything is just another excuse to bash the President!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SporeTen
November 15, 2009 1:37 PM in reply to celldumceen
If you keep watching the Talking Heads you better put a cage around your TV!
Terrorism®, the republican brand that keeps on giving.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mistersnrub
November 15, 2009 1:30 PM
Who cares what this neo-fascist lunkhead has to say. He ran the worst Presidential campaign of modern history (which is saying something, because Fred Thompson also ran).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SporeTen
November 15, 2009 1:39 PM in reply to mistersnrub
The same people who want to hear what McCain has to say?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
November 15, 2009 2:28 PM
I thought sleeping with another woman while you were married helped the terrorists?
At least that is what my Bible says Rudy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stefsstuff
November 15, 2009 6:16 PM
A noun a verb and 911. Rudy can't get over himself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bpollen
November 15, 2009 11:00 PM
No matter what comes out of his mouth, what Rudy is saying is "I'm still relevant! Really, I am!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanMuser
November 15, 2009 11:34 PM
Many of us in Middle America are scratching our heads with the announcement that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his alleged underlings will be tried in New York civilian courts. After watching and listening to President Obama and Attorney General Holder justify the decision, the reasonable person is left with a very simple question: “Why?”
It’s easy to get lost in all of the political spinning and back-peddling taking place to justify this decision, but there is only one question that needs to be answered to determine whether or not these individuals should be tried in civilian or military courts. That question is whether the bombing of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 was an act of war or a crime. If the bombings were an act of war, then these individuals should be tried in military courts, period.
Unfortunately, President Obama and Attorney General Holder do not consider the bombing of Americans on U.S. soil an act of war, but a crime instead. This seems out of step with Middle America, which rejects the mental gymnastics required to arrive at the conclusion that the bombings were a crime and not an act of war.
Like many of the decisions made by President Obama, this one too is rooted in political expediency, rather than sound policymaking. President Obama has shamefully chosen to afford these terrorists all of the constitutional rights reserved to American citizens. These terrorists will now ironically and perversely cloak themselves in the very protections of the U.S. Constitution they are trying to destroy, and turn their trials into a media circus. They will portray themselves as victims of over aggressive interrogators and prosecutors, giving terrorists gasoline to pour on their fire of Islamic extremist hatred around the world as they continue to work to destroy this nation.
The techniques used by the CIA, FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security to keep this nation safe and bring these terrorists to justice will be in full display in civilian courts and in the media for the world to see, compromising the ability of these agencies to keep Americans safe now and for years to come.
President Obama and Attorney General Holder have placed New York in the crosshairs of the world’s highest profile assault on Islam, jeopardizing the safety of its residents and ripping the scabs off the wounds suffered by thousands of the survivors of loved ones lost on 9/11.
What really indicates that this is a political exercise and poor policy is the fact that these terrorists will be completely unable to get a fair trial in New York, since every person in this nation experienced the horror of 9/11 to one degree or another .
Further, the president and attorney general have given Islamic extremists exposure they couldn’t buy any where in the world—center stage in New York—to parade their message of hatred to the world.
With the past 12 months as its guide, Middle America is cynical about President Obama’s real reason for trying these terrorists in American civil courts. This administration has been looking into the rearview mirror for the past year, running against the failed policies of George Bush and Dick Cheney, rather than looking forward and putting solid policy solutions on the table for American families. In keeping with their modus operandi, President Obama wants these trials to be an indictment on George Bush and Dick Cheney, around whose neck he plans to hang the fruits of the spectacle that will be viewed by the world when these trials commence. 9/11 was an act of war and these terrorists should be tried in a military court, off of American soil, period.
A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
November 16, 2009 12:25 PM in reply to AmericanMuser
Just in case you didn't know, part of the AG's job description is to determine what venue is proper for a trial of these people, and what the AG consults to make this decision is the existing body of US law, as opposed say, to what the results of a bunch of town hall meetings might dredge (or drudge) up. Perhaps you're having difficulty because the prior administration didn't ever have a real AG.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NHBob
November 16, 2009 8:11 AM
Sounds to me like Rudy would make a great national leader. Of Burma maybe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?