Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Congratulations, M. LeBlanc, ESQ | Main | Coroner: Journalists executed in East Timor »

November 14, 2007

Rudy Giuliani's tall tales of torture

My latest ITT column is up.

Rudy Giuliani made the following statement on Bloomberg TV in an interview that aired Nov. 2:

I can’t say that I [know more about torture than Sen. John McCain], but I do know a lot about intensive questioning and intensive questioning techniques. After all, I have had a different experience than John. John has never run city, never run a state, never run a government. He has never been responsible as a mayor for the safety and security of millions of people, and he has never run a law enforcement agency, which I have done. Now, intensive questioning works. If I didn’t use intensive questioning, there would be a lot of mafia guys running around New York right now and crime would be a lot higher in New York than it is. Intensive question has to be used. Torture should not be used. The line between the two is a difficult one.

I was shocked by these claims. Giuliani said that he busted the mob and reduced the crime rate using "intensive" techniques that are difficult to differentiate from torture?

Find out, here.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00e54f82f0ef8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rudy Giuliani's tall tales of torture:

Comments

Mudkitty, I AM the one who is open-minded. I am the one willing to look at new ideas that I may have once discounted. I once was a shithead convervative who didn't want to hear a liberal or progressive idea. But if you really read my "crap" you would know that.

Examples: I was once pro-life, but am now pro-choice. I was once anti-union, but am now pro-union. I was once for this war in Iraq but now am not. I once was of the mind set that all illegals should just be sent home, but now see that is not feasible and we must find a way to rectify the situation without splitting families and keeping a large part of our workforce. I have made a conscious effort to hear new ideas and understand them. Sometimes I do not agree, and that is my choice. You, however, are not open minded. You call yourself liberal and progressive, yet you are not open to any opinion that differs from your own.

As for Rudi, I agree with this from Dock Miles: "Blaiming Rudi for 9/11 is over the top. Not as loony as trying to lay the whole rap on Bill Clinton, but over the top nonetheless. Actually undercuts the credibility of complaining about his incessant exploitation of the tragedy."

The 2000 election is tired and worn out. But I will say this, no matter who would have lost, had it gone the other way, 50% of the country would have been saying the same thing. Gore lost. Bush won. It sucks. No one says hide the elephant under the rug. But to throw out as somesort of argument that all conservative thinkers are guilty of a crime because it happened is ridiculous.

Dock Miles, how am I wasting your time?

If you think the author of a piece can say whatever she wants and any errors, omissions, or misrepresentations are the responsibility of her editors, then we do have different ideas about journalistic standards.

But notice that Beryerstein does, as you pointed out, merely ask a question in the blog posts. Then she says that the ITT story answers the question. What do you think that means, vis a vis her responsibility for the assertions contained in the linked article?

>If you think the author of a piece can say whatever she wants and any errors, omissions, or misrepresentations are the responsibility of her editors, then we do have different ideas about journalistic standards.

Last time I checked, it was both parties' responsibility. They're called "editors," not "printers."

>What do you think that means, vis a vis her responsibility for the assertions contained in the linked article?

For this blog, nothing. When readers have complaints about articles in publications, the standard way to address them is to write to the editors of the publication, not the author's blog.

However, you make such a weak case that anything like a non-trivial misrepresentation occurred, it's plain that your serious point is not Rudy Giuliani and what he did or did not say. The point is jabbing Lindsay Beyerstein in the ribs.

And that is how you are wasting everybody's time.

I don't think it's fair to say that my point was jabbing Beyerstein in the ribs, but my point certainly was the accuracy of her reporting rather than Giuliani. (As I said upfront, I think I agree generally with her analysis of the ex-mayor.)

I think the accuracy of her reporting is a fair point to raise on her blog, in a post devoted to an article she wrote. I don't think my criticism of her was intemperate--I didn't say she was a liar, or that she was incompetent. I said her journalism would be improved if she were more judicious in her description of what Giuliani said.

What's plain to me is that your serious point is not whether Beyerstein's report about Giuliani is accurate. The point is--well, you don't really have a point, do you? Don't feel compelled to answer--I don't want to waste your time.

parse, don't let oppressive elitist wonks like Dock Miles deter you from speaking your mind. Dock thinks there is only one correct opinion: Dock Miles'. You are entitled to point out flaws as you see them. By doing so, you are not wasting anyone's time.

rudy didn't bust the ny mob. he relocated them to florida. Mainly the bay area.
Rudy !! Come take them back !!!

It's not about "blaming Rudy" for the actions of 19 thugs on 9/11...it's about him claiming the mantle of hero of 9/11, and even more about holding Rudy accountable for the shitty job he did before and after 9/11.

Do I need to repeat...the radios...the love nests (plural - including Rudy's love nest at the WTC EMC NY Headquarters, replete with bed, shower, walk-in closet and humidifier for his cigars - where he went with Judith for his trysts, while his wife and children lived in Gracie Mansion?) The Radios, the radio deal. His judgment in Kerik. The Radios, and the radio deal. And that ain't the half of it.

And what did Rudy do on 9/11 except run in the other direction while carrying a bullhorn? Why do people think that the mere speaking through a bullhorn is an act of courage?

Fact is, 9/11 happened on Rudy's watch. So what makes anyone think that another 9/11 couldn't happen again on Rudy's watch? The man has consistently shown bad judgment, over and over and over again, and takes credit for things he didn't do, all on the backs of the 3000 dead. He takes credit for being the hero of 9/11, when in fact all he did was grandstand.

It's the great people of NY and NJ who are the heros. It's the EMT workers and the Firefighters who died, because of Rudy's deal with Moterola, who are the heros.

Rudy is an opportunist, of the necrophiliac sort, not a hero. Beyond that, it is becoming clear that he is corrupt beyond anyone's current measure.

Does anyone know how many "cops" died on 9/11? I think you'll be shocked to find out, if you don't already know.

MONEY,
I'm glad you're open-minded, and good for you seeing the error of your (past) ideologies.
Now make the last step. Don't EVER vote for a Republican.
They hate government.
If you owned a corporation would you hire Karl Marx as your CEO?

>or that she was incompetent.

Truly misrepresenting what someone said is incompetent journalism, if it's not outright dishonest.

My point is that you are trying to score cheap, empty points. A waste of time.

>oppressive elitist wonks like Dock Miles

Oooh, I like that. "oppressive" code for "can't out-argue 'im." "elitist" code for "smart" maybe even the evil "intellectual." "wonks" code for "studies subjects and backs up arguments with facts." I'll take it!

>You are entitled to point out flaws as you see them.

C'mon McMoney, you misspelled six words in that post alone! How much cred do you expect to have?

>Dock thinks there is only one correct opinion: Dock Miles'.

If you read long enough, you will see I can be persuaded. But you have to cut down my assertions with more than cap guns.

And mudkitty, kitchen-sink condemnations of Rudy and 9/11 -- he didn't prepare for it right, he didn't respond to it right, he was a crappy mayor beforehand anyway, he's done nothing but exploit it afterwards -- is to kinda buy into his viewpoint, right? Why not dump everything about 9/11 and get into what a basically awful authoritarian he is? (Which is to say, the "crappy mayor beforehand" is the most fertile field. It's the one everybody would have to live under if he became POTUS.)

"C'mon McMoney, you misspelled six words in that post alone! How much cred do you expect to have?"

Really? Well, I guess along with being a smarmy ass you can't read either. I misspelled nothing in that post. But I do from time to time because I do not care. My point comes across. This is not work product nor does a misspelling detract from credibility. This is a blog. I type fast because I have other things to do. I feel no need to edit my posts. It is not that important. But it is clear that you are running out of things to cticize so you resort to the second lowest of insults on a blog: spelling.

You are oppressive because you try to bully people into silence. You are elitist because you put forth an air of superiority that you have not earned. You are reasonably intelligent from what I can tell from your posts, but c'mon, let's be honest, you aren't one of the leading minds of the day. You are wonk because you believe that the only correct viewpoint is one that agrees with your own.

Oh please, McMoney, you missed how badly you presented this?

>parse, don't let incesitivsive elitist like Dock Miles deter you from feltching your mind. Dock whimwhims there is only one congloberate opinion: Dock Miles'. You are gigin-too to point out flaws as you see them. By doing so, you are not wasting mullahfullacolaa’s time

If you take a really small laugh. Maybe about the size of a tiny pea. And you stick it in really swampy, muck-infested ground. And water it every other day at least. Hard assignment. Takes a lifetime. Then you, maybe, grow absurd humor plant.

Eat couple bites a day.

Come on, Dock. Your first argument was "Beyerstein didn't say what you claimed she said."

When I pointed out that she did say that, you shifted to, "well, she didn't say it on this blog. And she's not responsible for what she writes. If she makes any errors, it's her editors' fault for not catching them."

And then, "Well, the mistakes weren't important--because if they were, she'd be incompetent."

No wonder you want to change the subject to B Money's alleged errors--which seem to evaporate when he challenges you to enumerate them. Clearly, you don't hold people whose political views you share to the same standards you demand of your political opponents. Beyerstein is better off with no defenders than with defenders like you.

Was your mother frightened by an air pie? Thanks for confirming that you're nothing but a irrelevant-nit-driven spittozee.

Now boys, do you want me to turn this car around?

Dick Miles, I stick by my description of you: a smarmy ass oppressive elitist wonk. You have lived up to that with your last post. You said nothing that was "funny" or inspired humor. Had you done that, I would indeed laugh.

You are a sad little person who feels that you must berate all those who have the temerity to challenge anything you say or believe in. And you stoop to petty attacks and misrepresentations when you realize that you have nothing else to criticize. As parse points out, you do not attack those who hold your views the way you attack those of us who dare to challenge you. As I have said before, you are oppressive and a bully. Well son, that shit won't work on me. I take bullies head on. So keep bringin' it on!

Oh brother...

Rule: Every thread that discusses Giuliani and police powers must mention Abner Louima. If you wonder what the FBI will be up to, don't. We already know.

Yes, back to Rudy. LOL.
Because there is MUCH left to say.

Such as having reporters ARRESTED for asking questions.

Matt Lepacek.

Would Helen Thomas be next??

(I've said from early on that, for me, the one great failing of this blog is that it doesn't seem to attract enough informed, thoughtful, conservative posters who can sustain an articulate argument. They're out there -- but these guys aren't them. For one thing, the sharp cookies don't blatantly lie about what someone has posted. If I'd made arguments as sloppy and biased as parse claims, I would indeed be a jerk. But I trust most folks will read my actual remarks and then decide who's operating out of a prejudiced perspective.)

(That this --

No wonder you want to change the subject to B Money's alleged errors--which seem to evaporate when he challenges you to enumerate them.

-- was apparently offered with a straight face is pretty funny, though.)

>the one great failing of this blog is that it doesn't seem to attract enough informed, thoughtful, conservative posters who can sustain an articulate argument<

This blog, as well as most others, doesn't attract enough informed, thoughtful posters of ANY political persuasion who can sustain a good objective argument.

Blogs proliferate because people of, "less than prime-time talent," can create their own forum, bloviate ad nausem, and feel important.

How the hell else could these people gain an audience?

Truly intelligent people do not trust the established lamestream media, why would they waste time fruitlessly arguing with delusional and metamorphically oppositionally-defiant radicals of any stripe on an obscure blog?

Amen! You shouldn't waste another moment doing so.

The comments to this entry are closed.