A Liberal On Rudy Giuliani

[Myrhaf]

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Wow! Glenn Greenwald makes a powerful case for supporting Rudy Giuliani! You would think that a liberal would be against any Republican, but look at some of the glowing praise Mr. Greenwald heaps on Rudy Giuliani:

The most transparent and destructive fallacy being recited by our Beltway media class is that Rudy Giuliani is a moderate or centrist Republican.

And:

The very idea that Giuliani is a "moderate" or a "centrist" is completely absurd. Regarding the issues over which the next President will have the greatest influence -- foreign policy and presidential powers -- Giuliani is as far to what is now considered the "Right" as it gets. His views on foreign policy are far more radical and bellicose even than Dick Cheney's, and his view of presidential powers makes George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.

And:

A warmonger with authoritarian impulses and liberal positions on social issues isn't a "moderate" or a "centrist." He's just a warmonger with authoritarian impulses and liberal positions on social issues.

And:

Whatever else Giuliani might be, "centrist" and "moderate" is not it. He is one of the most radical major candidates in memory.

And what exactly is so good about Giuliani?

He has one of the

most extremist and war-loving foreign policy teams ever assembled

for a major candidate. He has advocated or expressed openness to such radical policies as

imprisoning American citizens with no trials

, having

Israel join NATO

, and launching a

first-strike tactical nuclear attack

on Iran. And he speaks

more glibly

than virtually any individual in the country about torture.

All that and he supports torture, too? Enough, Glenn, enough -- I'm sold. Go, Rudy!

View the full article

[TheEgoist]

I like being " radical " on foreign policy, especially when it comes to Iran. However, I am not a fan of extending executive powers so far out, and " imprisoning U.S Citizens without a just trial "

[DarkWaters]

Myrhaf,

Could you please elaborate on why being open to jailing U.S. citizens without a trial is a good thing? Even if the U.S. citizen has significant ties to an Islamic terrorist network, there is surely a judicial process to prove his guilt.

If anyone else can find one, I would also like to see a legitimate, non-blog source of Rudy Giuliani expressing openness to jailing U.S. citizens without a trial. Specifically, I would like to be able to judge the context of his statement. This could potentially be really bad.

[Myrhaf]

Myrhaf,

Could you please elaborate on why being open to jailing U.S. citizens without a trial is a good thing? Even if the U.S. citizen has significant ties to an Islamic terrorist network, there is surely a judicial process to prove his guilt.

I don't really accept Greenwald's and the left's version of how civil rights have been violated by the Bush administration. Their characterizations are overwrought and distorted. War is not criminal justice, but the left often applies the standards of criminal justice to war. For instance, they want the government to have to get a search warrent to listen to phone conversation of suspected terrorists and saboteurs in America.

I think the confusion would be much less if Congress did its job and declared war, so that any emergency powers the state had would end with the end of war.

According to Thomas Sowell, in WWII any German officers who were caught out of uniform were shot on site without a trial. Imagine what the left would make of that practice today.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Myrhaf

[DarkWaters]

For instance, they want the government to have to get a search warrent to listen to phone conversation of suspected terrorists and saboteurs in America.

I am not sure who "they" is here. Many Democrats I believe just want the administration to obtain a national security letter from FICA before imposing any wire tappings.

I think the confusion would be much less if Congress did its job and declared war, so that any emergency powers the state had would end with the end of war.

Until an objective war is declared, it seems pretty dangerous to start depriving United States citizens of their civil liberties when there presently is no objectively defined (by the people in power who are taking these actions) end in sight.

According to Thomas Sowell, in WWII any German officers who were caught out of uniform were shot on site without a trial. Imagine what the left would make of that practice today.

I honestly do not understand what you are insinuating here.

[Myrhaf]

I honestly do not understand what you are insinuating here.

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying that if we executed on the battlefield captured enemies without a trial today, as we did in WWII, the left would object.

Edited November 18, 2007 by softwareNerd
Fixed "quote" tag

[DarkWaters]

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying that if we executed on the battlefield captured enemies without a trial today, as we did in WWII, the left would object.

Oh okay, I could not identify who was shooting the German officers wearing civilian clothing.

[Myrhaf]

I understand your concerns, DarkWaters. I don't want to see us lose civil liberties because of war. And the neoconservative approach of permanent (undeclared) war for the rest of our lifetime is outrageous, first because that is not how war should be fought and second because our liberties will erode over time. But so far I have not been persuaded that there have been any abuses by the government.