Thanks, yes. It's great to be back. (ap)
Why should Huckaboom and Sarah Palin get all the attention? America's Mayor has been conspicuously absent from general speculation about 2012. Mostly, he seemed adrift, a man without a reason. But — behold! Rudy is resurgent — turning up all over cable and today, and RNC conference call with reporters, fulminating against plans to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed on trial in Manhattan.
GIULIANI: I disagree with it. It is fitting that the 9/11 murderers be treated as war criminals, because it was an act of war. This was not just another murder in the City of New York that year. This was an act of war, and an act of terror. They should be — they should be prosecuted — they should be prosecuted in a military tribunal.
Interesting! But also ah, somewhat inconsistent. As Domenic Montenaro points out at MSNBC, Guiliani used to think civilian courts were the best place to put terrorists on trial, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombers:
He said, for example in 1994, per the New York Times, that the verdict in that case “demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.” And “It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world, that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.”
Asked about the apparent contradiction, Giuliani noted that military tribunals were not an option in 1993. The Supreme Court in 2006 rejected former President Bush's notions for trying terrorists in special military commissions. Congress subsequently revised the plan, and Obama earlier this year issued new rules for the process, granting more rights to defendents.
“If they were dealing with it as a substantive legal matter, they would realize how silly it is to argue that this is the same as 1993, and Moussaoui,” Giuliani said.