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

[Raven]

First of all, why is Newt Gingrich even given a platform at all to discuss anything at all?

What is it about being run from office that the MSM just can't seem to grasp?

Why do they have to keep forcing the right wing has-beens down the throats of Americans, pretending as though they are actually political leaders - when they are, in fact, has beens already rejected by American voters?

[antirepublocrat]

Clearly, it's because of the liberal bias of the MSM.

[Mike169]

Never one given to hyperbole...and he fancies himself an historian!

[nexus1961]

The scariest thing tome is NOT being able to tell if they REALLY believe that crap, or it's all
calculated chicanery!!!!!!

[Old Hippy]

Newt who???

[ranger5]

I saw this guy on some newshow last Sunday, and I asked myself the same question I always ask when I see him or other discredited, and in some cases disgraced (Delay), politicos receiving a national forum. Who in the world thinks this guy's opinions matter, or are in any way useful. This man was one of the prime movers of the "Republican revolution", which is going up in flames as we speak. The Repub party, finally in complete control of the government, has given us the past 8 years of lies, corruption, illegal wars, bloated government, innumerable violations of the Constitution, executive hegemony, contempt for the welfare of the average American. and an economy shakier than any time since the days preceding the Depression. And Gingrich displayed his true hyprocritical Republican colors by having an affair while trying to impeach Bill Clinton for having an affair and then lying about it. Why journalists would seek this man's opinion is beyond me. He's an egregious liar and a pompous fool, whose policy ideas have been proven to be not just wrong, but catastrophically so.

[profounddogs]

HERE! HERE!

[bobwalters]

Amen!

[Archie1955]

The truth is that Gingrich is yesterday's man. He is totally irrelevant. He speaks to the lunatic fringe who don't matter as they will never change. Better to ignore his verbal nonsense and dwell on the important politicos.

[profounddogs]

Problem with that is, the media forces him down our throats. Just listening to him is nauseating enough. I'm with the first poster: WHY put this guy on t.v.????

[MourningDude]

One 'innocent' person held at Guantanamo has since served as a suicide bomber against our military forces in Iraq. Others have also returned to the Middle East to fight against us there.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/

So when we talk about protecting the innocent, I think we all must realize that there are innocent people that have been killed because we released people from Guantanamo. We shouldn't ignore that fact, or try to whitewash it.

Also, regarding your 'stateless' Palestinian client, I find it offensive. Even if the state has no official destination to deport the man, they should force him to leave the country. Let him choose which state to return to. And then if he refuses to comply, convict him of a felony and put him away.

Allowing illegals to game the system and stay here is offensive to me and to every legal immigrant that waited their turn and did it by the book.

[bobwalters]

Mourn on, Dude. What's offensive to you is as irrelevant as Gingrich!

[outmost1]

So, do you think the years of detention without any explanation had anything to do with the radicalization the the "innocent" detainee?

[cowboyjerkface]

Guess what mourning drip....if you incarcerate me without due process, take me from my homeland, torture me, do vile things to anything I find holy and then deny it ever happened.....yeah...im coming back for revenge!

And if you didnt do the same thing it would be because you are the very kind of gutless cowards who started this war in Iraq.

Why dont you, Rush, O'Reilly and Newt go try re-enlisting....I hear there is an incredible shortage of republicans willing to die in Iraq and you seem to fit the pattern to a "T".....

[MagisterLudi]

Hague and Geneva conventions PROHIBIT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF enemy fighters or soldiers!
This is the whole point!

TO SHIELD POWS FROM criminal courts!!!

Think about it!
Should've American POWs be tried in German criminal courts?

They'd be all be executed, according to law.

The lawyers for Gitmo prisoners and the Supreme Court in their hubris are trying to destroy Both Hagu and Geneva conventions!

Just because stupid Bush administration denied Gitmos POW status does not change the issue.

And who ever heard of lawyers for prisoners of war?!!!

So criminal law applies to Gitmos. Ok, But why only American ( even better British) law?
Why not the law of the countries of prisoner's citizenship!
Oh, sorry, you guys don't like Saudi or Kuwaiti law.
I get it.

[oafishcad]

Your argument only holds water if the prisoners were instead held under the rules of the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration said those rules also did not apply.

[MagisterLudi]

My point "holds water" anywhere in the world.
Bush chose to ignore the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and we should work to restore international rule of law.
You gotta problem with that?
Geneva/Hague states:
Gitmo prisoners ARE POWs.
POWs should not be tried in ANY court, criminal or military.
POWs can be held indefinitely.
POWS can be sent to countries of citizenship at the pleasure of capturing power ( U.S. in this case).

Oh, by the way spies can be tried and executed at will.

Thats the international law governing rules of war of which U.S. is a signatory.....
NEXT STORY

[fredpferr]

His argument holds water regardless of Bush's actions. Recourse should not be sought through our civillian courts. (The Geneva Conventions do not apply to these prisoners as they are truly unlawful enemy combatants; they wear no uniform, represent to country, and themselves have no regard for the Geneva Conventions.)

[Rrhain]

Incorrect. The Bush Administration has directly said that Common Article 3 applies to the detainees. That's why there's been this battle over the what sort of court proceeding they will have. Common Article 3 demands:

"a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

The status tribunals the Bush Administration has put forward do not meet this standard as they rely upon evidence obtained via torture, evidence the defense is not allowed to see, witnesses the defense is not allowed to question, and the removal of habeas corpus.

[bgregs]

But those are your only two choices. They are either held under the Geneva Conventions as POWs, or they are held under the constitution as suspected criminals!

[MikeDu]

This is becoming a more and more common right-wing tactic. Relying on their base's gross ignorance of pretty much everything, they throw out terms and phrases that *sound* high-minded impressive but are in reality non-sequitors. Here they're comparing the supreme court decision to Dred Scott knowing full well their base doesn't have a clue about Dred Scott. Earlier they were calling Obama a 'Marxist' knowing full well their base couldn't' recognize a Marxist from a hole in the ground. Other famous empty phrases bandied-about by the right wing? "Existential threat", "original intent", "Free-market democracy" (as though those two words were at all related), and of course Bush's inserting the word "liberty" pretty much at random to his speeches.

A side note about Gingrich's increasing hysteria. Do you recall in 2006 Israel had an unsuccessful little war with Lebanon that didn't last very long? I recall Gingrich's shrill cries of "The start of WWIII!" at the ime. He seemed to be rather disappointed when the world was NOT engulfed in flames!

[nexus1961]

You forgot:
"Judicial Activism'
Environmental Extremism"
Compassionate Conservative"( That one's a hoot!)
"homosexual agenda"
I could go on, but why give myself an ulcer?

[katsushin]

Or whats worse...their base is nostalgic for dred scott.

[colleen2]

No surprise here at all.
I've always seen Gingrich as having a great deal more in common with Trent Lott and Scalia than most folks realise. Of course this is a man who disposes of wives like normal people dispose of kleenex, a man who, while Speaker of the House, had lobbyists hand out checks on the House floor after votes. I'm pretty sure that Gingrich still believes that, had he not been replaced with Denny Hastert, the GOP would not be poised for landslide losses this year. Of course he's arrogant and wrong but I hope he's able to convince what's left of the republican party that this is true.

[Richardini]

That Newt Gingrich should even use the word arrogant is the height of arrogance. This puffed up so-called history teacher whose name invokes a lot of wrong doing should keep his mouth shut and disappear into the woodwork instead of giving his opinion on the Supreme Court decision to return to the Constitution which George Idiot Child forgot starting with his first day in office. I am ashamed to be associated with any Americans who would torture other human beings and keep them cooped up like animals for years without even accusing them in our courts. What kind of beasts are running our country?

[musicman42]

Newt and his peeps all seem to believe that just because they think someone might do something, and they look like a terrorist, then they have the right to arrest them and hold them without charges for as long as they believe they're a threat.
Being an American citizen should not be the determining factor when recognizing human rights. No one should be held or jailed without being informed of the charges against them, or to be denied or delayed counsel. (And It doesn't matter if the facility that you keep them in is as nice as club med.)
The argument that an enemy combatant has no rights is as ridiculous as sayings that women or minorities shouldn't vote or shouldn't be afforded rights due to their gender or race.
As a country and a people, we will live to regret letting the right get away with this kind of hypocritical and flawed belief in labeling people as not being deserving of basic human rights because of fear, insecurities, predjudice, ignorance, or political gain. Or because they say that their going to do something. We didn't used to arrest people just because they said they were going to harm someone. We have to wait until an actual crime has been committed.
Oh well, It will be just another of many embarrassing moments in American history that no one will want to admit to or remember.

[Camel54]

Let's also remember that Newt railed against Reagan back in the late eighties calling him an appeaser for wanting to talk with Russia. He warned of the 1938 Chamberlain debacle happening again and America losing to Communism. Turns out he was dead wrong about just like he's dead wrong about this and just like other Republicans are dead wrong about Obama talking with today's world leaders.

[MourningDude]

Reagan never appeased Russia. I guess it's debatable whether Reagan's meetings had any impact on Russia crumbling or not. I would guess not. Russia was mortally wounded from it's own Cold War policies.

People on the right were concerned that Reagan would 'give away the farm'. Going into Reykjavik, Russia and the US each had a list of demands. By the end of the talks, Russia had capitulated on every US demand, essentially accepting everything we had asked. And Reagan still refused to sign off on it.

At the time Reagan looked like an unreasonable warmonger. It was not much different than Yassar Arafat walking away from the Camp David meetings.

So, pointing to Reagan's talks with the Russians isn't exactly a good example of what negotiation accomplishes. He never cut a deal during those negotiations. Perhaps they were able to develop a personal relationship, but that is all that came of the negotiations.

Kim Jong Il is not reasonable. Iranian Jihadists are not reasonable. Hugo Chavez is not reasonable. These are people that hate America. They don't respect us. Chavez threatens to destroy our economy regularly. He's broken binding contracts with US companies. He has a big chip on his shoulder against the US. Iran chants "Death to America!" in their parliament. It's a fundamentally different scenario.

[HawkOnTheLeft]

Please read more carefully. Camel54 didn't say Reagan appeased the Soviets. He said Newt accused him of it.

My response to your later points is that what Bush has done has made our enemies stronger. Worried about the madman Kim Jong Il? Because John Bolton's cowboy diplomacy pushed him into a corner, he played the nuclear card and reprocessed 30 - 60 kg of plutonium that had been under lock and key under the Clinton 1994 treaty.

Invading Iraq, along with the associated cowboy diplomacy around the world, has made our enemies stronger. Those who support it have no business telling us how to make America safe.

BTW, even with my comments, I'm glad to have a reasoned alternative view on this blog.

[katsushin]

Chavez has a chip on his shoulder because we tried to kill him!!! and even if we didnt he would be legit in his disgust with the US because of all we did to destroy their country and economy in the name of "neo liberal economics." We ran roughshod over central and south america and now are dealing with the blowback.
Iran on the other hand has only to look back to our cia orchestrated overthrow of their democratically elected prime minister Mossadegh and installation of the shaw and his brutal regime to know why they hate us.
The right loves to talk of personal responsibility but refuses to take any. The main thing is that they dont hate us for our freedoms as gwb would love you to believe, they hate us for what we have done to them for decades.
Kim Jong Il is another story...hes scary but of course other than being part of the "axis of evil" bush has left him alone.

[montanadan]

Remember when Newt Gingrich was relevant and people cared what he thought? Didn't he used to be somebody important?

[mike53]

I am sure your thinking of Bill Clinton.

[rmreddicks]

..."about half are considered too dangerous to release, even though the government does not have enough evidence to charge them."

Perhaps they've become "too dangerous to release" due to the treatment we've accorded them. Something our government might not wish the world to see. Unending isolation in the land of night and fog can do terrible things to a person's mind. Upon their release we owe these internees as much mental health therapy and physical therapy as the internees themselves desire.

A war designed to be never-ending is not an excuse for never-ending imprisonment. At the very, very least, if we have a shred of decency, these PEOPLE have a human right to state their case openly and be allowed to face their accusers. Not just their interrogators and torturers.

[ProfessorDuh]

The question is, dangerous to whom? Many are "too dangerous to release" because they could then prove that they were innocent people tortured by the fascist U.S. government.

[bronceye]

What you have missed is Newton's sly slipping in of a "mushroom cloud" derivative. Newkular scare tactic. There were plans for a nuclear bomb on the internet several years back. Plans amount to nada. The problem of the war on terror is that it isn't being fought by our nation, but by the neoconmen. Everything is a secret except to those politically poised to know, not militarily. It's basically a scam, meaning that the Constitution cannot be observed. The drumming up of fear, the hoisting of names to hate and the lies about threats and individuals are all Nazi techniques and we have been duped. This way to the giant egress, people.