19 November 2007

Worth the six paragraphs

Andrew Sullivan drops a severe TU on Rudy Giuliani.

RG:
[The Democrats and some Republicans are] more concerned about rights for terrorists than the terrorists' wrongs. I mean, these granting of rights to criminals and terrorists, even when they're necessary, come with a price, a price at the other end of it. Even for the ones that are necessary, like, let's say, the Miranda ruling, it's one you agree with--there's a price for that. Maybe it's one worth paying.

The exclusionary rule, there's a big price for that: Criminals go free. They walk out of court. If you say, you know, no aggressive questioning, then we're not going to find out about situations. If you say no wiretapping, well, there'll be conversations going on, planning to bomb New York, or Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and you're not going to find out... . People will say that aggressive questioning doesn't work. I, you know, I ... Honest answer to that is, it doesn't work all the time. Sometimes it does.
AS:
'Aggressive questioning'? And you thought 'enhanced interrogation' was Orwellian. 'Rights for terrorists'? How about rights for terror suspects? I'm sorry but those of us who support the Constitution, the rule of law, the Geneva Conventions, and the separation of powers are not in love with the evil that terrorists do. And it's deeply offensive to say we have more concern with terrorists' rights than with their wrongs. We have concerns about human rights and civil liberties - things that Islamists want to destroy.

Notice, moreover, that Giuliani seems to harbor no notion that any terror suspect in the US is innocent until proven guilty, and assumes a complete, reflexive conflation between 'criminals' and those charged with a crime, as if no government official could ever confuse the two, or ever make a mistake and decide to cover it up.

Notice also his assertion that some Democrats want no wiretapping, period. What they and rule-of-law Republicans favor is wiretapping with warrants, and minimal oversight, to prevent abuse. Again: what's staggering to me is that Giuliani never seems to contemplate that such abuse is even possible. Nothing could be more alien to a truly conservative mindset.

It seems to me that a vote for Giuliani is a vote for a police state that uses torture. I put it that bluntly because I don't see how granting one man the right to seize and torture anyone anywhere is anything else.

(Reynolds: You support Giuliani, right?
I'm interested in hearing your take.)

3 comments:

Jordan said...

sullivan is a bit of a sanctimonious, self-righteous bastard, but he's spot on when it comes to rudy.

Bodenner said...

i agree he can be pretty hysterical and high-horsey (a prime example). but he does seem to rein himself in most of the time.

what instances in particular were you thinking of when you say he's hypocritical?

The Becca said...

I'm pretty sure Reynolds doesn't like him.