Newt Gingrich Pulls a Trent Lott

In my last post, I gave in to the temptation to respond to John McCain's comments on Friday, calling the Supreme Court's Guantánamo decision "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," by asking how it might compare to several other horribles--Dred Scott v. Sandford (the case holding that blacks were not persons, undoing the Missouri Compromise and setting the stage for the civil war); Korematsu v. United States (upholding the forced removal of Japanese-Americans from the West Coast during WWII); and Plessy v. Ferguson (the "separate but equal" decision underlying seven decades of subsequent segregation). (George Will picked up on the theme with the same "worst case" list yesterday; this morning on the NPR show I was on, the best a spokesperson for the McCain campaign could do in response was say it wasn't productive to compare two terrible decisions, or words to that effect.)

But sure enough, on Saturday, Newt Gingrich came out and made explicit what the post implied: the right is so crazy that they believe the opinion giving men held at Guantánamo the right to go before a federal judge and ask it to decide whether they are wrongly detained is the equivalent of the decision that held that African-Americans had "no rights the white man was bound to respect." Here's a transcript, but go to the video for the full impact:

GINGRICH: I will say, I think the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the President and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history.

More destructive than the Civil War? Oh wait, there's more:

INTERVIEWER: In its history?

GINGRICH: In its history. Worse than Dred Scott, for the following reason: The court has now knowingly stepped in, this morning's newspaper say, smugglers had actually gotten the design of a nuclear weapon, that we now have the evidence that people out there had a nuclear weapon design. And this court is saying that any random district judge, based on whatever their personal caprice is, whatever their personal ideological bias, can intervene with a terrorist in such a way.

... The problem with Obama is that he's wrong...He applauded this court decision. This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. The debate ought to be over whether or not you are prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers - it was a five to four decision - and five lawyers have decided that the Supreme Court counts more than the Congress and the President combined in national security.

Not content to insult the Justices of the Supreme Court, Gingrich apparently went on to characterize all federal district court (trial-level) judges as "nutcake" later in the interview.

First of all, what the hell is he talking about? That nuclear weapon reference came right out of left field. (It reminds me of a habeas case I did for a stateless Palestinian - Farouk Abdel-Muhti - where we argued he had to be released from immigration detention because he had no country to be deported to. The government delayed his habeas corpus hearing for two months to submit an "administrative record," which included the allegation that a jailhouse informer had indicated that "Abdel Muhti has knowledge of suitcase nuclear weapons inside the United States." Needless to say, the court ordered him released 9 days after we finally got around the delays and got a hearing. He died of a massive heart attack three months later, after 23 months in pointless detention, the government having repeatedly lost his blood pressure medication prescription records during that time because administrators misspelled his last name in the prison computer system. Puts our Guantánamo habeas delays in perspective.) And what "personal ideological bias" does he have in mind? Those judges who ascribe to the ideology of ... allowing our cities to get blown up by homicidal maniacs? Those who have in the past coddled nuclear weapons smugglers?

Second, safety and liberty not at war with each other. They're not locked in some kind of "balance," one always traded off for the other. Instead liberty is a means of ensuring an open society that is structurally predisposed to expose incompetent government before it can do more damage. (Conversely, as Pat Moynihan famously put it - alluding to the Eastern Bloc - "Secrecy is for losers.") Hiding detentions from the scrutiny of the courts will not convince the rest of the world that we are not engaged in a Global War on Islam; will not help sort out the innocent from the guilty; and will not allow the public to determine whether the executive is doing a competent job in capturing the guilty. And note well: Habeas is merely the right to ask a neutral decisionmaker whether you are wrongly held - not a "get out of jail free" card. As the Court put it on Thursday: "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

Third (and commenters, please discuss this among yourselves): Why is this not as bad as Trent Lott's comments celebrating Strom Thurmond's segregationist past? Why isn't Gingrich being forced to apologize to black Americans? To all of us?

--June 17, 2008

P.S. Meanwhile, more on McCain's hypocrisy here:

McCain and Graham's objections sharply contrast with their positions in 2003, when they wrote a letter to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, urging him to swiftly resolve the status of Guantanamo detainees:

The treatment of the detainees is not an issue. However, a serious concern arises over the disposition of the detainees - a considerable number of whom have been held for two years. [...]

Yet, we firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action.

On Dec. 13, 2003, the New York Times also reported that McCain said, "They may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I'm concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely."

Five years after their letter, just one detainee has received a verdict. Approximately 270 are still detained there and "about half are considered too dangerous to release, even though the government does not have enough evidence to charge them."

This Supreme Court ruling will inevitably lead to a "flood of new litigation" challenging the Bush administration's right to hold these detainees. Detainees will then finally get a decision as to their status -- exactly as McCain and Graham requested.

In light of these 2003 remarks, it's unclear why McCain considers this Supreme Court ruling the "worst decision in history," except for the fact that it isn't what the Bush administration wanted.

Comments

[Blivet]

Can you imagine anyone shallower than the bloated salamander masquerading as a history professor?

[GPRogueCowboy]

Gingrich clearly wants the world to do away with their legal systems with KANGAROO COURTS.

[antirepublocrat]

What I find truly amazing is that Gingrich's argument is as true of US citizens detained on US soil as it is of random people purchased by the US military in Afghanistan or Pakistan. What he's basically saying is that there should NEVER be an independent review of ANYBODY's detention by the Executive, because that review will be by some individual Federal judge, who may be some sort of kook (but somehow confirmed by the Senate).

Gingrich has no idea what the Revolutionary War was about. He has no understanding whatsoever of the purpose of an independent judiciary. With a House and Senate largely made up of people who have no better understanding of basic civics than Gingrich, is it any wonder the Patriot Act "legalized" National Security letters, which are just a different name for the Customs Warrants that so enraged the Patriots of 1776, or any wonder that we are "debating" whether NSA wiretaps should be subject to warrants issued by an independent FISA court?

[AlligatorShuz]

Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott and Sean Hannity are the sons of SLAVE OWNERS what more do you expect from people that have their views.

[bgregs]

Now that's not fair! I'm also a descendant of a slave owner, and I DON'T consider the same views to be valid!

[Sciguy]

"Why isn't Gingrich being forced to apologize to black Americans?"

That's a gimme. Black Americans are still not considered to be human beings.

[davidpeace]

to fredpferr:

In America, everyone, EVERYONE, citizen or not, has the same rights. "Ordinary" aliens, such as people from South America, when they commit a crime, still have a right to have a lawyer, and to have lawyers provided to them at no cost to them if they can't afford one; have the right to freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly..... Even illegal aliens. The Constitution applies to everyone in the areas controlled by the US: the states, Washington, D.C., the territories, and yes, even bases like Guantanamo.

And to Newt: Nuclear weapons design is public knowledge! Here's a sample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design.
And since I'm fairly certain he doesn't read Huffington Post, so I posted the following on his website:

As to your lame comment on nuclear weapons design: It is public knowledge on how to build nukes. Check this wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

As for where to get the vile materials to make nuclear weapons, check this out, also public knowledge:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf112.html

Basically, anyone with a passport can go to Africa, for example, and get the stuff. EVEN IF THEY ARE ON THE US "NO-FLY" LIST! This is because the US does not control all the world's airlines, planes and airports. Furthermore, would the average customs and border agent recognize nuclear materials being brought into this country if they saw it? My guess is not.

[fredpferr]

The Constitution itself is not the law, it is the document from which law is derived. There is civilian law and there is military law. While I agree with most of your 1st paragraph, the Guantanamo detainees do not legally enjoy the rights you claim they do.

[katsushin]

you are wrong...the constitution itself is law. it may not be the criminal code but it is law and any law written MUST fit within its structure. I think you have a basic misunderstanding about why the country you live in was created.

[knighthowl]

What law school did you attend? If you ever did attend one, please ask for your money back. The Constitution is law. It is the law which controls the legitimacy of other laws. In other words, it is the supreme law of the land.

[bgregs]

And yet the few laws that are specifically written into it (such as Habeas Corpus) ARE laws, and they ARE the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, when the BASIS of a law says one general thing, and the law itself says something specific which diverges from that basis, the basis is the winner, ALWAYS!!

[michiganfan]

The weapon design issue is total FUD. Anybody with access to Google, The History Channel, or a library could create a design for an atomic bomb virtually identical to the Hiroshima bomb, using the highly-enriched uranium that Iran is trying to produce.

The Hiroshima bomb used HEU. The design for the bomb was so ridiculously simple, the engineers didn't even have to test it. They knew it would work.

Iran knows how to make the bomb. Iran knows how to make HEU. Anyone who is worried about stopping them from getting this knowledge is plainly ignorant of the situation. The only unknowns are whether Iran has the production capacity to make enough HEU for a bomb, and whether or not they would do it if they did have the capacity.

[antirepublocrat]

Iran is not "trying to produce" highly-enriched uranium. They are enriching only to the low levels needed for nuclear generation of electric power. If they were producing HEU, the IAEA would find traces of it in their equipment. The IAEA has repeatedly confirmed this is NOT the case.

You correctly point out that "whether or not they would do it (produce HEU) if they did have the capacity" is unknown. However, the more we threaten Iran with our own and Israel's nuclear arsenal, the more incentive we give them to develop some sort of deterrent capability.

[Mover]

Correction.

Iran is not "trying to produce" highly enriched uranium (HEU). They ARE producing highly enriched uranium.

'hope this helps.

[oafishcad]

GOP-fear and ignorance. same ol same ol.

[BinBaldwin]

Newt is 100% Correct. During the War of 1812 the US did not grant civilian trials to British POWs and most of the signers of the US Constitution were still alive

Did the North allow the 210,000 Confederate POWs the right to a Civilian Trial? No.


Did we allow the hundreds of thousands Nazi and Japanese POWs to have US Constitutional rights? NO. Imagine 100,000 Nazis trying up US Courts?

[Chillinout]

Read the article again. This doesn't mean that they are going to be tried in civilian court. This is for a judge to decide if there is enough evidence to hold them. And the Nazis and the Japanese were afforded Habeas Corpus. There were hearings for all of them to see if there was enough evidence to charge them with a crime. Several Japanese and Nazis were released because there wasn't enough evidence.

Learn your history.

[MadVillianous]

The prisoners in Guantanamo are not being held as POWs. I they were this would not be an issue because their treatment would be covered under the Geneva Convention. The prisoners have been classified as unlawful enemy combatants specifically to avoid affording them the protections of the Geneva Convention. The fact is that POWs cannot be charged with crimes under domestic laws, unlawful enemy combatants can. What Bush and Co are arguing is that they don't have to charge these prisoners under the US's criminal codes. They want to basically make up new rules as they go allowing them to deny the prisoners all rights whatsoever which is against both US law and international law.

[bosse]

Many of these poor souls were just picked up by other Iraquis just to please their American bosses. Can they have a hearing, and a public prosecutor tell them, what they did, to be jailed in this island, far away from their families? What are we afraid of? Let our consulates in Saudi Arabia not issue any more visas to some of them.That will keep them home. But let us not be afraid to try these guys: , a chance even the worst criminal gets in USA>

[cowboyjerkface]

Newt has never been 100% anything except bloviated!

[Mover]

So there!

Too funny

[bgregs]

But remember, these are not POWs, these are enemy combatants, and suspected terrorists. BOTH of those labels mean that they are CRIMINALS, which means that they deserve ALL the protections that the constitution grants to criminals.

Now then, if you don't want them to have access to criminal courts, then we need to consider them POWs. That, however, grants them rights under the GENEVA CONVENTIONS!!!

[civillibertieslost]

Newt has had far too many minutes in the spotlight. Now he pursues self-aggra­ndizement. If we refuse to look at him, he'll slither back into his nest.

[bosse]

Except for FOX, these forgotten self made critics, experts, Presidential aspirants. cheaters, adultrorers
would have no platform. We have too many channels, too many anchormen seeking fame and money
So we have old expert,Kissinger, Clinton hater and former friend and the like, yaking very where. Why don't these guys, go plant a tree and watch it grow. Who do they think is watching them?
Gingritch Does his mom watch him?

[gevan]

Did Newtie say which side he was on in the Dred Scott decision? Then the court decided that a certain class of persons had "no rights which we are bound to respect." Now, the court has decided that human beings DO have certain inalienable rights. But the modern GOP doesn't want us to hear that. They seem to prefer a government by Presidential diktat; not a nation of laws.

[Bettysdad]

It's typical that when right-wingers want to trick the public they use some sort of liberal icon.
This is one more example of this.

The also invoke MLK in their anti-abortion nonsense. nd when they really want to insult liberals, they accuse us of McCarthyism.

[fredpferr]

He was talking about the magnitude of this awful decision. Get over the Dred Scott reference. We are conferring rights reserved for citizens uf the U.S. on men that do not even have standing under Geneva. We are giving cheesebag lawyers the opportunity to defend these men in our courts using our tax dollars. Anyone that has a problem with he length of their detention should not be looking to our miliitary code; this is not a civil issue.

[fredpferr]

Correction: SHOULD be looking to our military code.

[fredpferr]

Self-correction: "SHOULD be looking to our military code ..."

[Chillinout]

Read the Constitution. Habeas is afforded to everyone under US control, regardless of what the right-wingers say. The detainees in Gitmo and elsewhere ARE under US control.

[Rrhain]

You need to re-read Common Article 3. Bush has directly said it applies to the prisoners.

"(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"

What part of "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees" are you having trouble with?

The right to habeas corpus has been part of the common law for centuries. It's why the British, upon which the American common law is based, went to civil war.

[rfshunt]

Where to start. The Constitution does not "confer" the right of Habeas Corpus. That right is assumed as one of the natural rights of people. Not U.S. citizens in particular, but people in general. The Constitution makes it clear that Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Bush`s adventure in Iraq is neither.

Good thing too. Torture enthusiasts (and I suspect you are one) would gladly scuttle it for the chance to try out a little Abu Gharib-style action on anybody they could get their hands on, whether they had been shown to be guilty or not. Habeus Corpus forces potential tyrants to make a case for guilt and not imprison someone without due process - based on the political whim of the day.

And finally, this is most certainly a civil issue. Most of the detainees were taken into custody not during any fighting, but rather plucked off the streets.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/yoo/index.html

[Chillinout]

"The Constitution does not "confer" the right of Habeas Corpus"

You also need to read the Constitution, especially Article 1, Section 9 which says:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

[colleen2]

"Get over the Dred Scott reference

No. He needs to apologise for his disgusting comparison and admit his error.

"We are conferring rights reserved for citizens uf the U.S. on men that do not even have standing under Geneva."

Habeas Corpus is a great deal older than the US Constitution. Likewise we know that many, if not most, of the prisoners committed no crime and have been unjustly imprisoned for years. I understand that conservatives do not care about that but normal folks find it as offensive as most conservative notions of 'justice'.

"We are giving cheesebag lawyers the opportunity to defend these men in our courts using our tax dollars"

The earning potential of men who have been (unjustly) imprisoned is fairly limited. Oh, and the "cheesebag lawyers" are those who defend scum like Douglas Feith and, hopefully, Alberto Gonzoles, Donald Rumsfelt and Dick Cheney and his entire staff when they are tried for war crimes.

[JiminNC]

Maybe McDoink will make him VP - one can only hope!

[BatedBreath]

Democracy is much to messy for conservatives to handle so they take control by denying rights, rights that our founding fathers were smart enough to build into the constitution. Conservatives are too tyrannical to recognize and understand that these rights are inalienable for all men, not just repubs.

[fredpferr]

Democracy is much too messy for liberals, and this is why they use the courts to have their way. The rights of which you speak, OUR rights under OUR Consitution, do not extend to unlawful enemy combatants ... at least not until now.

[Peteyman]

Wow. Democrats may be whiny, but unlike Republicans, they can govern. Dems may seem like women, but Republicans look like retards, and sound like retards. These men may be unlawful combatants, but they are still under US control, and DO get the protection of the constitution.

[EGNY]

Basically you just said, "Democracy is too messy for Liberals, and this is why they use Due Process (a core principle of Democracy) to have their way." There are three branches of government in our Democracy: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Get it?

Historian Rick Shenkman points out that only 2 of 5 Americans know there are three branches of government, and can name them. One summary of his book (there are many others) is in this U.S. News article: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/03/the-ignorant-american-voter.html.

You seem to be one of those people who are confused about the components of our Democracy which form the Separation of Powers -- a fundamental principle that you can’t allow the power of a monarch (or Executive) to decide who is an "enemy" and then, on the basis of that determination, to lock them away in a dark hole, never to be heard from again.

The current crop of neo-conservatives don't seem to understand the basics about our Democracy. They -- and you, apparently -- want to do away with all this messy Democracy stuff, because they see it as standing in the way of their ability to govern how they want, using whatever methods they want, with as much secrecy as they want.

Funny, that's the kind of stuff American Democracy was supposed to cure!

[katsushin]

They are ONLY "unlawful enemy combatants" because GWB says they are!!!! Your argument is that "unlawful enemy combatants" should not be afforded the right of habeas corpus and the people who determine whether they are "UECs" are the same people that are doing the arresting? You dont see a problem with this?

What strikes me most about this is the degree to which people on the right are willing to gut the constitution to "protect" it. I am curious about what they think makes this country great if not our rule of law? The one thing GWB has shown us is that once you begin to strip our civil liberties we look just like any other corporatist state. It is easy to speak about the greatness of our system when things are good, but it really only counts when you are willing to speak up for those rights when they are applied to people you find despicable.

[bgregs]

OUR rights under OUR constitution are not GRANTED by our constitution. Our constitution simply points out simple rights that EVERYONE is granted by the creator, and tells the govt that they cannot REMOVE those rights. Habeas Corpus is one of them!!! Get that through your thick little skull! You cannot have it both ways, either these guys are POWs, and subject to the Geneva Conventions, or these guys are suspected criminals, subject to the CONSTITUTION!