Giuliani on waterboarding: ‘It depends on how it’s done’

In recent weeks, it appears that Rudy Giuliani has changed his campaign strategy a bit. Over the summer, the former mayor positioned himself as a pragmatic choice for Republicans, billing himself as a candidate who could compete in “blue” states and win a national election. It quickly became an awkward pitch, and Giuliani frequently came across as a buffoon, but that was the strategy.

More recently, however, he’s apparently lost his mind. “Buffoon” is out; “lunatic” is in. Consider his comments at a town-hall meeting in Iowa last night.

Linda Gustitus, who is the president of a group called the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, began her question by saying that President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey (who happens to be an old friend of Mr. Giuliani’s) had “fudged” on the question of whether waterboarding is torture.

“I wanted to ask you two questions,” she said. “One, do you think waterboarding is torture? And two, do you think the president can order something like waterboarding even though it’s against U.S. and international law?”

Mr. Giuliani responded: “Okay. First of all, 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.”

Ms. Gustitus said: “He said he didn’t know if waterboarding is torture.”

Mr. Giuliani said: “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)

At the risk of sounding impolite, these are the words of a crazy person.

Remember, Giuliani is running for president as an expert on counter-terrorism and national security policy. And yet he told this Iowa audience that he doesn’t know whether waterboarding is torture, and doesn’t know if newspapers can be trusted to describe the torture technique. Apparently, reality continues to have a “well-known liberal bias.”

Giuliani, adding to his thoughts on waterboarding, also said:

“Sometimes they [journalists] 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.”

It’s like listening to Bush without the charm.

On a related note, Giuliani, who used to oppose the NRA and file gun-control lawsuits, said in New Hampshire this week that blind people should be able to carry firearms.

Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani is leaving the door open to allowing the blind and physically disabled to carry guns.

During a town hall meeting in northwestern New Hampshire Tuesday night, Giuliani told a former police officer blinded in the line of duty and concerned about the former New York City mayor’s stance on guns, “You don’t have to worry.”

“You have a constitutional right, that is protected, to bear and carry arms. It is the Second Amendment,” Giuliani told about 200 attendees in a high school gymnasium in Lebanon. “If someone disagrees with that, you have to get the Constitution changed.”

He added that he believes in only three restrictions for those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment right — a previous criminal record, a history of mental instability and an age requirement.

No vision, no problem. You want a gun, it’s yours.

Breathtaking.

Most people who own guns are sighted. We need to balance it out with equal rights for blind people to arm themselves.

Helen Keller should pack heat. She should be a cop. As Tom Robbins, the author, says, “She’s blind and she’s deaf but she can smell a rat a mile away. Pow.

  • uh, I love your comments and insight, but George W. Bush is NOT charming. Listening to him talk is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

  • Well at least we wouldn’t have to worry about Rudy’s associates carrying guns if a criminal record is a disqualifier.

  • Perhaps Mr. Giuliani would oblige being subjected to the “right kind” of waterboaring so that he could demonstrate to the world would non-tortuous waterboarding looks like. I’d like to see that.

  • Sometimes they [journalists] 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.”

    This is easily resolved. The U.S. must have tons of footage of waterboarding. Why not just put one instance on the news so that we can all see how it isn’t torture?

  • I like the way he worked in the gratuitous slur “liberal media.”
    That’s the way it is done.
    Every chance you get you’ve got to land a blow.
    And the greater the rhetorical leap… the better.
    The base likes that.
    And finding out what riles the base is what it is all about.

    Which reminds me…

    Watch John McVain ride that Woodstock-Hillary thing like a horse-with-no-name.

    The Republican base is addicted to rage.
    Everyone knows that.
    And Johnny finally found something that will make the hive biting mad…
    Yep…
    Johnny has found his meme.
    And he’s gonna fly now…
    And drop his payload of indignation everywhere he can.

  • >This is easily resolved. The U.S. must have tons of footage of waterboarding. Why not just put one instance on the news so that we can all see how it isn’t torture?

    Better yet: Have Rudy volunteer to undergo the form of waterboarding that is not torture on live TV, so everyone can see that it’s no big deal.

  • Well, since Giuliani is uncertain about whether waterboarding is torture and it really all depends on who’s doing it and how, perhaps a group of cross-dressers could whisk him away (without his cell phone — that Judith is ALWAYS interrupting his peak moments) and subject him to the “procedure”, oh, say, once every 15 minutes. Then, as entertainment, they could sing “KumbaYa” and “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” and make him watch old re-runs of Hee Haw in the less-active intervals. Maybe pull out a couple of toenails — that wouldn’t cause death unless you forgot the bandaid afterward.

    Then Giuliani could go before all the people and authentically claim that the failure of his captors to use deodorant and being forced to watch Hee Haw were MUCH worse torture to him than waterboarding or a couple of lost toenails.

  • He added that he believes in only three restrictions for those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment right — a previous criminal record, a history of mental instability and an age requirement.

    Exceptions which, oddly enough, are not in the Constitution! If the gov’t can add these three, why not others?

  • Oh, how I wish that woman’s follow-up had been, “I’m sorry, Mr. Giuliani, but since you present yourself as an expert on terrorism and security, how is it that you don’t know whether waterboarding is or is not torture?” A girl can dream…

    How is it possible for Giuliani’s response to be taken as even marginally credible by anyone? Oh, of course, the liberal media distorted Mukasey’s responses on the torture questions – yeah, that’s it – and maybe the liberal media is thinking about some other kind of waterboarding, not the kind Giuliani knows about.

    Yeah, I guess it’s kind of like having a tooth pulled with local anesthesia and without – the latter being more akin to torture – so I guess the kind of waterboarding that wouldn’t be torture is the kind where they don’t use water, or the detainee is face-down and not face-up.

    Giuilani is definitely the candidate of the moronic – everyone else should be insulted beyond belief.

  • If Giuliani wins, it’s just the culmination of the “spite voting” trend that’s come to dominate national politics since, oh, Reagan at least. They–the fascist sheep who provided the “applause”–support him precisely because people like us perceive his terrifyingly sadistic and authoritarian character traits.

    And Rudy knows it. He’s not a stupid politician; he works in shots at “the Democrats,” “the liberal media,” and “Hillary Clinton” (a proxy for those other two things, not the close-to-Republican triangulator who makes me so depressed) at every opportunity precisely because he knows how to rub the rage-ogenous zones of his willfully ignorant and hate-addled right wing audience.

  • Oh, it matters who does the waterboarding…for example, if we do it, not torture. If someone else does it, it’s torture. Thanks, Rudy!

  • It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.

    Sounds like that diabolical “moral relativism” I’ve heard about from screechy preachers at the low end of the FM dial.

  • Anyone who thinks that waterboarding is not torture should offer to experience it for themselves. Otherwise, they should just shut the hell up.

  • “It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.”

    So . . . if the Spanish Inquisition does it, it’s torture. If we do it, it’s “enhanced interrogation.”

    I get it, now.

  • starfleet_dude said:
    It may be impolite to say it, but those who applauded are idiots.

    I think the most likely anti-torture crowd at this event were applauding to express their approval for the idea that newspapers don’t get you the right details– they were expressing their skepticism, their feeling that the CIA gives the papers a scrubbed version of what they’re actually practicing:

    “And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always describe it accurately.”

    Probably about half of them realized Giuliani didn’t mean it in exactly this way, and they weren’t trying to show approval of him, per se. They thought he kind of slipped, but said something they wanted to hear, so they were going to show theit approval to people / to him of what he said. Probably about half thought he finally said something good for once, and were applauding him too. In my honest opinion.

    Don’t know where your comment is coming from.

  • At the risk of sounding impolite, these are the words of a crazy person.

    At the risk of sounding impolite, these are the words of pretty much any post-Reagan Republican: Nothing right-wing American politicians do is bad and if you hear otherwise, it’s because the liberal media is lying to you.

  • A friend is someone you can trust with your wife, your life, and your wallet. People, Rudy Giuliani is not our friend!

  • Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani is leaving the door open to allowing the blind and physically disabled to carry guns.

    I wonder whom he has in mind when he speaks of the “physically disabled” Tourette? Parkinson? No reason not to pack, just because your hands are shaking. And, once we get that little matter sorted out, I think we should take up the cause of another discrimination against the blind: drivers’ licenses… Without those, how is a blind man to do a proper “drive by” shooting?

  • were we wrong to prosecute japanese officers for waterboarding prisoners during WWII?

    to put it another way, where do you come down on the whole “war crimes” thing?

  • I know it sounds ridiculous, but since a lot of my co-workers here in the Army are, for lack of a better word, gun nuts, i can kinda understand why a blind person would want a gun and why they should be allowed to do so. Basically, for these kinda people, collecting guns is no different from collecting classic cars. So, while you wouldn’t want a blind person driving a classic car down the road, you wouldn’t have any issue with him/her owning it and keeping it at home, if that was what he/she was into. Same thing with a blind person and a gun. Just because they own it doesn’t mean they should be allowed to use it in the same manner as a non-disabled person.

  • benjoya: “were we wrong to prosecute japanese officers for waterboarding prisoners during WWII?”

    You already saw Giuliani’s answer: “It depends on who does it.” By definition, if we do it, it’s okay.

  • U.S. interrogation techniques are NOT torture, period. Those who are saying differently are incompetent or asserting propaganda for political benefit at the cost of American citizens. No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

  • If he doesn’t know “what the real description of it is”, then how does Rudee know that “Sometimes they describe it accurately. Sometimes they exaggerate it.”

  • I love your comments and insight, but George W. Bush is NOT charming

    For the record, I was kidding. I don’t think Bush is charming, either.

  • Dr. Coles, what on earth are you doing here? Authoritarian types usually feel a lot more comfortable elsewhere. Try the Free Republic site, or maybe the John Birch Society. I did follow your link, just to humor you. That part about socialism is SCARY, alright. I’m gonna go hide under my covers.

  • It depends on who does it?? I’m guessing that the difference is that some people do it for torture, while others just do it for fun. Of course, for guys like Giuliani, it’s probably a little of both.

  • Comments are closed.