What is Digg?98 Comments
- hawkeye17, on 06/18/2008, -5/+60The only thing Rudy stands for is Rudy. Even his own children won't speak to the man, which speaks volumes about his character(or lack thereof).
- twiztidsinz, on 06/19/2008, -7/+419/11!!!!!
This guy seriously makes me sick.. nothing but a fear-mongering self-serving bastard - dinobot, on 06/19/2008, -7/+26Rudy = verb + noun + 9/11
- jbdobd, on 06/18/2008, -9/+25Rudy, Like McCain, was before it before he was against it.
- billbugger, on 06/19/2008, -1/+16this country was (well, now is) founded on the basis that all (wo)men are created equal, even non-US people. This country was founded by immigrants, and foreign peoples.
This country has forgotten that!
See: Immigration debate, Enemy Combatant, D.C. Voting rights, Telecom wiretapping, etc.
We are completely backwards from what this country was founded on.
Anyone That Is Willing To Sacrifice Freedom For Safety Deserves Neither... Ben Franklin - loggia, on 06/19/2008, -4/+18I don't that believe that Giuliani, a former prosecutor, can actually believe that criminal prosecution is the wrong way to go. And his past comments belie that.
Like McCain, he appears to have changed his statements to appease a certain faction of voters. I don't believe that McCain or Giuliani, both very smart men, believe half of what they're saying anymore. - CosmosCR, on 06/19/2008, -1/+14I hate the phrasing "prosecuting terrorists". The whole point of the legal system is to determine if people are guilty, they are suspected terrorists until they have gone through the legal system and been found guilty.. then they are terrorists. Then we can take away their rights.
- bgrah449, on 06/19/2008, -0/+10I think this is legit. I can't wait to date a pretty American woman named Harry Loop.
- troub, on 06/19/2008, -0/+9"Not one German or Italian soldier during WWII was treated as a criminal. No habeaus corpus, no discovery. NO. They were treated properly and with the distinction they deserved - ENEMIES."
That is also a stupid and fallacious argument with respect to the current conflict. German and Italian soldiers were uniformed soldiers fighting for an organized sovereign government on which our country had officially declared war. German soldiers were the guys walking around in German soldier uniforms and driving German military vehicles, etc. When the "enemy" is a few random guys off the street, are you allowed to treat all random guys off the street as enemies to be shot on sight, or scooped up like POWs? Oh, sorry, POWs actually have rights, and since we're not officially at war, all the random guys we scoop up are "enemy combatants," which means we can just pick them up and dump them in a hole somewhere for eternity without even telling them why. That is not right. - iamnotcreative, on 06/19/2008, -3/+11Rudy bringing it up every other sentence to try to scare enough people into giving him the presidential nomination was disgusting.
- edwartica, on 06/19/2008, -2/+10And we care about what Rudy Giuliani believes why? His opinion matters just as much as the crazy person who yells obscenities while peeing himself on the bus.
- mattearle, on 06/19/2008, -4/+12How is anything he says relevant?
- loggia, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8Have the military handle it? Actually, the military objected to almost every facet of the way it's been handled. Approve or disapprove, it's been handled by about 20 people in the upper echelons of the Bush administration, who "believe" so strongly in their plan that they say "I don't recall" every time they're called in front of Congress. Or they blame "rogue" soldiers and agents for their own plans.
Whatever you believe, let's have some people willing to stand up and say "This is what we should do. I authorized it." - Visual77, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7Yeah, and the fact that we would've launched a strike at the first target that seemed responsible is exactly what went wrong.
There's a reason a judge is not allowed to hear a case that directly involves him or anyone he personally knows. You can't be impartial right after being attacked, and when the stakes are as high as they were (innocent people killed or imprisoned because they vaguely resembled the guilty party and we were blinded by rage and a desire for vengeance), being impartial is the most important thing.
If any country should stand up for thorough justice at the cost of a feelgood, bloodlust rampage, it should be America. - alex7575, on 06/19/2008, -4/+11what's really disgusting is your so beloved Giuliani, taking credit for all the effort made by others.
Using it as a pillar for his presidential campaign was just a new low.
Of all people you are trying to defend Giuliani?!?!? McCain, I may understand... - unicronband, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8At first I dugg you up assuming your comment was meant to be sarcastic until I read your comment below and realized you are being serious. Thank god the new comment system lets me change my vote.
- unicronband, on 06/19/2008, -1/+7And I'll leave the fearmongering/pandering to those who think 9/11 is somehow an excuse to advance their own sick agenda.
- tidu, on 06/19/2008, -2/+7It's not funny. It's actually sick that Guiliani uses 9/11 to push his agenda. I respect that he lost friends on that day, but he loses all respect when every answer to any question is "x, y, or z because of 9/11" He didn't even read the commission's report that had the 3 points about why they attacked us, remember? All he remembers is that his friends died, he probably had to go though a ton of ***** as mayor, and now he wants revenge.
- sodade, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5I am beginning to understand the post 9/11 mindset now - people like you and Rudy are sleeper agents who were activated to destroy what little good remains in our failing nation.
"Look, we're talking about people willing to kill themselves to hurt us. Threatening them with jail time isn't a serious deterrent, is it?"
And threatening them with torture, humiliation and death is? The "bad guys" have probably known about AG and GB much longer than the US media - think it affected their recruitment drives? - pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5someone seems to forget the nuremburg trials. your idea of a trial seems to be "i say you are guilty, therefor you are".
- inactive, on 06/19/2008, -3/+7Well the answer is simple - in 1993 Giuliani was Giuliani. In 2008, he's a reptilian replacement of Giuliani.
(braces to see how many people take me seriously) - inactive, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5Well Rudy got a lot of foreign policy experience eating lunch in Chinatown.
- highlymodified, on 06/19/2008, -4/+8The criminal justice system is the system America uses to fairly administer JUSTICE. Duh.
What other system should we use? Lynch mobs? Torture? Clandestine prisons? Gitmo? GTFO.
Besides, Rudy is just as irrelevant today as he was yesterday. - inactive, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it. ;)
*goes to find a bus* - Locnar, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5And how many of those people in those camps are directly linked to 9/11?? You'd be lucky to find a dozen out of the hundreds that were imprisoned.
Look, I don't think we should roll over and ignore what happened, but the moment we start holding people without due process or torturing people is the day we sink to there level. This is the USA... our way is justice for ALL.. not all but the people we capture or think might have done something wrong..
Slippery slope sir, one day you to could be incarcerated without a trial for something you might not have done.. But without due process who's there to protect you? - Waiting2awake, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4What are American soldiers doing abroad? Bring them home.
- archiesteel, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4"He was detained by an officer operating outside of his jurisdiction, the warrant for arrest was not proper, rights were not read, etc, would all be valid Habeas Corpus loop-holes."
That is actually false, as detailed in the Supreme Court majority decision brief. Granting terrorist suspects the write of Habeas Corpus does not mean they need to be read their Miranda rights when captured, or any such nonsense propagated by the warmongers. - VitriolAndAngst, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Afghanistan offered the US OBL before we invaded, if we wanted to try him in the courts of some neutral country.
It may not be easy -- but it's better than uselessly bombing everyone who had no gripe with the US in an effort to send money to crony contractors. - tman84, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Didn't Rudy finish dead last in Republican primaries? I don't think anyone cares for what this guy has to say, whether you are on the left or right, I think everyone agreed that this guy was completely irrelevant and out of touch with America. The man used 9-11 to make hundreds of millions of dollars in speaking and consulting fees.
- TinternAbbot, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4Terrorists caught on US soil should be tried in US criminal courts, yes. But it's not so easy when they're caught abroad.
- jacekw, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5The way I understand it is a little different. Obama supports the appealability of the decision. Rudy and McCain are both opposed to the ability to appeal the decision of the Judicial system, which is predetermined. Note: Im not saying I support Rudy at all. He is a prick that helped defend a company that killed hundreds of people and completely got them off the hook (all they got was community service). However, I think that these idiots (all of them equally so) are talking about different things. Giving terrorists the possibility to appeal, Habeas Corpus if you will, could technically set half of the terrorists that we capture completely free based on technicalities. He was detained by an officer operating outside of his jurisdiction, the warrant for arrest was not proper, rights were not read, etc, would all be valid Habeas Corpus loop-holes. For this reason, I agree that they should not be allowed the appeal.
- unklesam666, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3yes, if a person is unilaterally deemed threatening by a governing body, they should immediately be killed. that's how you git 'r dun!
- publiclurker, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Man, it's amazing how the morally bankrupt feel that they can justify anything as long as they are scared ***** or feel they can profit.
- inactive, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5Giuliani has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. He has no standing to be making statements one way or the other. He was just a mayor, nothing more.
- pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5i was a resident of NYC on 9/11. so?
- Ouze, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3the only thing that's stupid is that line of BS you're tossing about. The 9-11 attackers assumed their phones were tapped and spoke in code, as documented in many places (here's one http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/22/madrid. ... )
I never understood the argument that to preserve democracy, we have to destroy it. - bgrah449, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4But how many of those funerals only had bodies because the firefighters had to force him to let him find their bodies? If he'd had his way, those bodies would have been in the Staten Island dump, unidentified.
- stanleyford, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Submitter misunderstands. I would hope that anyone--Republican or Democrat--would want captured terrorists to be prosecuted using the legal system, instead of punished through extra-legal means. How we combat terrorists "in the field" is a different matter: do we treat them as criminals and assign law enforcement agencies to deal with them; or do we treat them as enemies and assign the military to deal with them? There is no inconsistency in believing that law enforcement is incapable of containing terrorism, while at the same time believing that captured terrorists should be subject to due process of law (although reasonable people may differ as to the effectiveness of that approach).
That is what I believe Guiliani meant: he did not mean that it was wrong to give the 1993 WTC bombers due process of law, but that it was wrong to treat it as a purely law enforcement matter which was finished after the trials were over. Look at his actual words: "that was a terrible mistake in not recognizing the full dimension of what we were involved with." He didn't say prosecuting them was a terrible mistake; he said the mistake was not understanding the "full dimension" of the situation. - techweenie, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Rudy is a corrupt idiot, but there's no story here. It was perfectly reasonable for him to have a "September 10th mindset" in 1993.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Most of these "ter'rists" were gathered up based upon Rewards fees paid to a rival faction. So, they were probably not read any rights, just tied up with a bag over their heads.
I'm sure that there could be provisions to deal with the "method" of acquisition -- the MAIN sticking point here; is that there is probably NO evidence, and that these people were TORTURED. So it is really about the Bush administration CYA and really, not even a tiny bit about guilt or law. - veersite, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2I guess Rudy (and about 48% of the voting public) figured out that putting them in jail doesn't get rid of them (get ready for the plot point, my dim-witted lib friends...)
But killing them does!
********If the prosecutions of the '93 bombers were so wonderful, why did we have 911?******
Oops!
Rudy is just fine with his assessment. A wise man may change his mind many times... but a fool never does. - banderwocky, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Flip flop McNutter III.
- alex7575, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4OC73,
You are obviously a blind apologist, and for a 37 year old you sure sound like a 15yr kid.
"asshat", "putz"? Give me a break, grow up first, before you barge in in an adult's conversation.
Kids now a days, I swear... - Thuktun, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1The Iraq war is going on right now and has continued to do so for years, in case you missed it. People bring it up constantly because it continues to happen.
Democrats keep using it in their platform because they want to do something different, and Republicans who follow Bush want to "stay the course", though they're careful to avoid that phrase now.
You must be a troll. - 140Suffolk, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1When there's a few yellow jackets at a picnic you can just brush 'em away. But when there's a lot of them you've got to follow them back to the nest. And kill them all.
Back in 1994 it seemed that legal prosecution made sense. Then came another six years of bin Laden attacks, on the USS Cole, the African embassies and other sites. Which likely would have been stopped if President Clinton had treated the first WTC attack as an act of war.
After the other attacks, and finally after Sept 11 it became clear to everyone that prosecuting the individual killers and leaving the organization was not enough. Clear, that is, to everyone except Obama and the other lefties.
What Guiliani said in 1994 made some sense back then. But after 3,000 people were murdered a new decision had to be made. - RabidAngel, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1More douchebaggery from politicians? Who would have thought it.
- hmunkey, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1for it*
But we all know what you meant. - tman84, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Oh I get it, thinkprogress is so smart and we are so stupid. Because there is an article about how Rudy disagrees with Obama and Rudy is a hypocrite, and there is a picture of Rudy and McCain shaking hands and we're supposed to deduce that somehow McCain feeds on the brains of small children because of this. Don't insult my intelligence thinkprogress.
- Strangiato, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Ask a New York firefighter who was on the scene during 9/11 what he thinks of Ghouliani.
'nuff said. -
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is