Features » November 14, 2007 » Web Only

Rudy Guiliani: Criminal or Liar?

An investigation into Guiliani’s claims of familiarity with “intensive questioning” techniques

By Lindsay Beyerstein

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani raised serious questions about his record as a public servant when he announced on television that he had used “intensive questioning techniques” on New York mobsters and other criminals, and that his brand of intensive interrogation was difficult to differentiate from torture.

Giuliani put on his best tough-guy act in an interview with Al Hunt on “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” which aired on 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.

Taken at face value, these are shocking revelations. Was Giuliani implying that he conducted these interrogations while he was Mayor? Or perhaps when he was the number three official in the Reagan Justice Department? The references to “mafia guys” and the New York crime rate may be an attempt to evoke Giuliani’s career as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he made a name for himself as mafia-busting prosecutor.

In These Times called Giuliani’s press office seven times over the course of 48 hours, seeking clarification about his remarks. These calls and messages were unreturned as of press time.

It’s not clear exactly what techniques might fall under Giuliani’s rubric of “intensive questioning.” However, Giuliani said that the techniques that he favors are difficult to differentiate from torture.

It is far-fetched to think that Giuliani learned his enhanced interrogation techniques as mayor of New York.

“If Rudy is suggesting in any way that they used torture or aggressive interrogation in New York City then he is absolutely unfit to be president,” Giuliani’s former director of emergency management Jerry Hauer told the Huffington Post in an interview published on Nov. 6. Hauer added that local officials have no jurisdiction to torture anyone.

Giuliani’s alleged exploits don’t square with the policies and practices of the New York City Police Department, either.

“We are guided by what the constitution allows,” NYPD spokesman Sgt. Reginald Watkins told In These Times. “You can’t intimidate people into talking about a crime.”

Watkins explained that suspects in NYPD custody are under no obligation to talk and that they are entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning. Under no circumstances are police allowed to coerce people into answering questions.

When asked whether the NYPD officers are ever allowed to use physical pressure, Watkins seemed genuinely appalled.

“It goes without saying,” he said, “You cannot touch someone to get them to tell you about a crime.”

So, did Giuliani put the screws to the “mafia guys” as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District?

Recall that the mafia cases that made Giuliani famous were ordinary criminal prosecutions, not counter-terrorism operations. As a U.S. Attorney, Giuliani had no legal authority to order the “enhanced” interrogation any prisoner—where “enhanced” is defined beyond what’s already permitted as a matter of course.

One former Justice Department Official who served during Giuliani’s tenure in the Reagan administration dismissed the idea that Giuliani made routine use of any kind of enhanced interrogation techniques. The official explained that any prisoners awaiting trial on federal charges would be in the custody of the FBI, not the U.S. Attorney office. They would have been interviewed according to FBI rules, which also acknowledge the prisoner’s constitutional rights. Ultimately, the agents of the Bureau take their orders from the Attorney General, not from the US Attorney.

At most, Giuliani might have been in a position to urge the FBI officers assigned to his office to question a suspect more intensively, but only within a strict framework of constitutional safeguards.

Lawyers take an oath to uphold the constitution. If Giuliani knowingly violated the constitutional rights of suspects, he could be disbarred.

Introducing coercion into a domestic prosecution would also be incredibly short-sighted because any information extracted by such techniques would be inadmissible in court. If Giuliani had ordered unconstitutional interrogation methods, he could have destroyed years of painstaking legal work.

If confessions were being extracted by torture under Giuliani, attorneys for the defendants would likely have filed motions to suppress those confessions. No such motions came to light during numerous searches of legal databases.

Giuliani says his techniques helped bring the crime rate down. If he used these methods routinely, one might expect some record of complaints. Our investigation turned up none. A spokeswoman for the New York Civil Liberties Union said the organization was not aware of any complaints of torture lodged against Giuliani.

In all likelihood, Giuliani’s claims about intensive interrogation techniques are merely idle boasts. For Giuliani’s sake, let’s hope he’s simply lying, rather than admitting that he committed criminal acts while he was a high-ranking public official.

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  In These Times: Crazy left wing rag or Subversive Anti-American hate group?
  An analysis shows that ITT consistently either neglects the truth or engages in outright lies

  Seems i can write titles as well as ITT. Maybe i can get a job here?  :)

  Posted by wolf on Nov 14, 2007 at 9:08 AM

  Intensive Interrogation my butt! 
  I guess Rudy must be a liar cuz if he used that technique as DA, Bruce Cutler would have boiled him in oil, then nailed him to the cross.
  We forget the Mob hires sharp lawyers like Cutler that can grind any overzealous DA into hamburger meat.
  Besides, lest we forget, Rudy never convicted John Gotti (Hah Hah!)

  Posted by Blackhat35 on Nov 14, 2007 at 11:33 AM

  “‘We are guided by what the constitution allows,’ NYPD spokesman Sgt. Reginald Watkins”

  From your lips to God’s ear, Sargeant.

  Posted by Kuya on Nov 15, 2007 at 1:15 AM

  Giuliani is anti-American and a subversive, a Bush with brains and little feeling for the people. He also proved that he is a lunatic by allying himself with that other looney, Pat Robertson who is always receiving exclusive personal messages from god. They in turn are aligned with the Stupid Party which has in nearly two terms of the squatter in the White House’s presidency brought America to the brink of ruin. Giuliani’s crocodile tears for the 9/11 victims and his claim to fame since that disaster is outrageous and shameful.  He is an opportunist of the first order.  He should have stayed in his job as a criminal prosecutor, the only thing he was really good at, but instead rose to his level of incompetence and now possibly threatens America by wanting to be president. 

  The man is both a liar and a criminal since the two go hand in hand.

  Posted by davinci on Nov 15, 2007 at 2:43 AM

  Seems to me that someone from New York should file a complaint against him with the New York Bar Association so that they can do an investigation. If he is admitting he used tactics indistinguishable from torture he should be disbarred.

  Posted by hcgorman on Nov 15, 2007 at 4:47 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.

Also by Lindsay Beyerstein

• Kiriakou and the Kite Runner
  The CIA agent who just admitted to waterboarding a high-ranking al Qaeda operative has had an interesting retirement.Posted on December 13, 2007
• Anthropologists on the Front Lines
  The Pentagon's new program to embed anthropologists with combat brigades raises many concernsPosted on November 30, 2007
• Examining the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
  Harman doesn't believe homegrown terrorism is a major threat to U.S. security today, but that it is important to learn from experiences in other countries like Britain and Canada, where citizens have been inspired to commit terrorism at home by Islamic propagandists reaching out over the InternetPosted on November 1, 2007
• A Resolution Too Far?
  U.S.-Turkish relations, already strained by the war in Iraq, are being tested further by the controversial congressional resolution recognizing the 1915 genocide of Armenians.Posted on October 17, 2007
• Merc is the New Crack
  America's deadly dependence on private security contractors in IraqPosted on October 3, 2007