Giuliani Rips Mitt Romney On Healthcare: 'A Mandate Is A Mandate' | TPMDC

Rudy Giuliani must have picked up some of the Tea party spirit as he headed north to New Hampshire where the license plates say Live Free or Die.  He has found a new freedom: the freedom to have no health insurance. It's a remarkable reversal the Republican Party has embraced: being uninsured for illness is not a bad thing: it's a personal freedom.

Rudy Giuliani Rips Mitt Romney On Healthcare: 'A Mandate Is A Mandate' | TPMDC: "Is Rudy Giuliani running for something?

On a visit to the crucial primary state of New Hampshire, the former New York mayor took dead aim at Mitt Romney for his Massachusetts health care law, calling on him to apologize to America for inspiring President Obama's own reforms.

'[Romney] can't talk his way out of this,' Giuliani told the New Hampshire Union Leader. 'A mandate is a mandate is a mandate is a mandate is mandate. Let's get real.'
According to Giuliani, Romney has 'taken away people's freedom' with his requirement that Massachusetts residents purchase health insurance, and his failure to admit it was a mistake is damaging to the party."

The basics: Khalid Mohammed and the 9/11 trials in New York

Rudy Giuliani can spill a lot of poison in a short time. Today he said on a Sunday TV talk show that Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that the U.S. would try the alleged 9/11 mastermind in federal court in New York is an instance of:

“Barack Obama deciding we’re not at war with terrorists any more....I’m concerned that we no longer believe we’re at war with Islamic terrorists when they’re at war with us” He added that the administration has been hesitant to label the Nov. 5 deadly shooting of 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood, Tex., as an act of terrorism, noting that the suspect, Nidal Malik Hasan, had printed a personal business card that used an abbreviation describing himself as a “Soldier of Allah.” “The administration has been slow to come to the conclusion that Hasan is an Islamic terrorist” he said on “This Week”, according to the New York Times.

How quickly do they forget that 9/11 happened on their watch, that it was George W. Bush who slept when he got the memo headlined "Bin Laden determined to strike U.S." Barack Obama, who on Monday paid powerful personal tribute to the victims at Ft. Hood (see post below) is on Sunday slandered. Par for the course for Rudy Giuliani to use tragedy and ethnic code as a partisan tool.

There will be much ink spilled on these upcoming trials. So let's begin with the basics. The United States has a choice. It can try the guerillas it has arrested before a military commission or an Article III civilian criminal court - the United States District Court for the Southern District of Manhattan. The prosecution is burdened by the legacy of those who drove us to war in Iraq on grounds proven false, by Abu Ghraib and the images of torture at the hands of American soldiers. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the most prominent of those we will now try for murder, has been tortured: 183 times on the notorious waterboard.

How shall we demonstrate to the world that the man we tortured and seek to execute is the right man, the actual planner of the 9/11 attacks, rather than a fantasist who seeks credit for a crime he did not commit? In a closed military tribunal? Or by trial in public, with the protections that our laws and constitution afford? The Justice Department has commendably chosen the latter.

So let us look at the framework that our Constitution establishes in the 5th and 6th Amendments. The script they write is what inspired my classmate (HC '67) Rep. James Moran (D Va.) to say, with characteristically loose lip, that opposing the trials in New York is "unamerican":

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.