Why Rudy? Part 1
I'm not going to turn this blog into an endless commercial for my candidate, but when the guy does something outstandingly good, he does something outstandingly good. See this link in today's NYT transcribing Rudy Giuliani's answer to a question on interrogation techniques.
Asked whether attorney general designate had "fudged" on torture, Giuliani answered:
I don’t believe the attorney general designate in any way was unclear on torture. I think Democrats said that; I don’t think he was.
When the questioner added that Mr. Mukasey had said he "didn't know" whether waterboarding counted as torture, Giuliani continued:
Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it’s been defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. The way in which they have described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if that’s the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn’t be done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because I’ve learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always describe it accurately.”
(Applause)
If I can’t figure out that there’s been a significant media bias against this war, then I shouldn’t be running for president of the United States.
(Applause)
Sometimes they describe it accurately. Sometimes they exaggerate it. So I’d have to see what they really are doing, not the way some of these liberal newspapers have exaggerated it
Now, on the question of torture. We should not torture. America should not stand for torture, America should not allow torture. But America should engage in aggressive questioning of Islamic terrorists who are arrested or who are apprehended. Because if we don’t we leave ourselves open to significant attack.
And the line between the two is very delicate and very difficult. But we can’t abandon aggressive questioning of people who are intent on coming here to kill us. Or killing us overseas. I think that that’s the point that the attorney general designate was trying to make.
And the powers of the president are pretty significant in protecting the national security of the United States. They always have been. So I think what he was also trying to do was protect the powers of the United States to deal with unforeseen circumstances like the hypothetical we were asked during one debate – I’ve forgotten which one: If there was a terrorist attack on an American city, and it was clear that there were all going to be additional attacks, some of them were going to be nuclear, and they were planned for the next couple of days and one of the people involved in it was arrested, and the head of the C.I.A. came to you and said we have to do certain things to get the information from him, would you authorize it? And I think most of us answered it, yes we would, we would authorize doing whatever we thought was the most effective to get that information.
The president has to have that kind of leeway. We’ve got to trust our president well enough to allow that. If we surround this so much with procedure, we’re going to have some unforeseen circumstance in which a president’s not going to feel comfortable making the right decision, particularly if you have the wrong person there.
So I think America should never be for torture. America should be against torture. It violates the Geneva Convention. Certainly when we’re dealing with armed combatants, we shouldn’t get near anything like that. There is a distinction, sometimes, when you’re dealing with terrorists. You may have to use means that are a little tougher.
And I see, when the Democrats are talking about torture, they’re not just talking about even this definition of waterboarding, which again, if you look at the liberal media and you look at the way they describe it, you could say it was torture and you shouldn’t do it. But they talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That’s plain silly. That’s silly.
That comes from people who have never investigated a real criminal case, never investigated organized crime. You know how I put hundreds of Mafia people in jail? And I helped to put thousands in Italy in jail? You know how I did it? I did it by electronic surveillance and aggressive questioning. None of them wanted to give me the information. They didn’t walk into my office and say, ‘I want to tell you about all of those Mafia murders…'
“They got ‘em because we arrested them, we got very significant charges on them, and we questioned them for long, long periods of time. With very aggressive techniques. Never ever tortured anybody. I can tell you that. Would never allow it. Don’t know of any situation in which the F.B.I. did it.
And then, please have a better view of the men and women who serve you in law enforcement and in the intelligence services.
(Applause)
I know the liberal media paints them like, you know – These are the good guys, not the bad guys. They really are. I mean these are the people who put their lives at risk to protect you and me. These are people of scruples, honor, decency. They don’t want to torture anybody. They have no desire to harm anybody. What they are dealing with sometimes are these enormously difficult life and death situations, in which there is a possibility of getting information about a group of troops that are going to be killed, and they’re going to have to go tell their mothers and fathers that they were killed and there’s a chance maybe of stopping it. Or there are these – I mean, suppose some of the people who were going to do Sept. 11 had been captured beforehand. We sure as heck would want some very aggressive questioning to find out what they knew.
So let’s be careful on how we define this. And, sure we should be against torture. But we should not be against aggressive questioning. And the line between the two is going to require some really difficult decisions about drawing it and kind of trusting each other with the discretion for the president to make decisions about what has to be done in the interests of the American people.’
I have known every American president since Gerald Ford. I knew Richard Nixon, but before he was president. I met him, I didn’t know him. I can’t say I knew Richard Nixon. But I’ve known every American president since Gerald Ford. Some Republicans, some Democrats. I can’t think of a one that would ever want to see somebody tortured. Also can’t think of a one that wouldn’t have the courage to make some tough decisions to protect the lives of the American people. And that’s the kind of person you have to have as president of the United States.
Isn't that the kind of eloquent answer - the kind of vigorous defense of American actions - you've been longing to hear from a national leader? People sometimes call Rudy too combative. But so many slurs have been thrown at the United States, its armed forces, and its leaders - don't those slurs need to be combated? I have to believe that everybody in that audience came away from this exchange with their resolution fortified and their courage reanimated. And that's what we're all going to need in the months and years ahead.
10/26 11:44 AM
Dumberer
Of course, Rudy's answer below has provoked outrage in the left blogosphere.
As Joe Conason and hundreds of other bloggers, commentators, and assorted hecklers put it, "If it's not torture, Rudy should try waterboarding himself."
Smart point!
In exactly the same way:
Anyone who thinks that a prison sentence is an appropriate punishment for armed robbery should go spend 20 years in penitentiary himself!
Anyone who thinks it okay for police to shoot a suspect who draws a gun should submit to be shot himself!
And - let's take this reasoning to its logical conclusion - anyone who thinks it permissible for the US to drop bombs on foreign enemies should logically volunteer to have the US armed forces drop bombs on his or her own house!
Fair's fair, right? What kind of appalling hypocrite would dare suggest that the US ought to treat ordinary law-abiding people in any different way from the way in which it treats its most desperate, deadly, and criminal enemies?
10/26 12:10 PM
Update
Reader Doug Nelson, from Bettendorf, Iowa, writes about the event discussed below:
I was at the event where Rudy gave the answer you quoted. (Davenport, Iowa this past Tuesday). The quote doesn't reflect several factors that make the answer even more impressive to me. The questioner stated she was representative of an international, inter-denominational (and I think inter-religious) group against torture. Her facial expression when asking the question and the follow-up clearly showed some anger. She was there to confront Rudy. I was able to watch her face during his answer.
is respectful demeanor and careful answer was probably not what she expected. By the end of his answer there was the faintest nod of her head. He can explain and support his opinion without offending, and maybe even change some opinions.
10/26 12:29 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment