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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Newt apparently hasn't lost any of his propensity for bitter-lipped humorless inanities designed to fan the flames of (self-)righteous faux outrage among his fellow wingnuts.
Statements like these made by Gingrich only serve to show up the real attitudes and motivations of those who perpetuate such sorry misadventures as Guantanamo -- and all in the name of a fallacious sense of national security borne of delusional exceptionalism. And while we're on the subject of "losing cities", is Newt thinking at all of New Orleans, whether because of the ACE's failures and cronyism at Bush's FEMA (thoroughly documented here on HuffPo by Harry Shearer) or, perhaps the relatively close geographic proximity of NOLA to Guantanamo?
Meantime, the actual threats to our security and liberty -- whether concieved here at home or abroad -- continue to be ignored.
As I recall Robt. Openhimer told Gen Leslie Groves who was obsessed with secrecy about the A bomb, "You can't keep a law of nature secret." , somebody else is bound to discover it. Habeus Corpus has been a part of British justice for 800 years; US law is based upon British law in force before the USA declared its independence. A narrow majority of the SCOTUS reminded us of that.
British law in force before 1776 can be compared to laws of nature in the USA.
larry lynch
"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."
Ok, I can't even read the rest of this! But I had to answer after this quote. Tell me, Newt, when does a district judge step in and tell the police to let a man go free who might be a criminal? If I'm being held on suspicion of murder, and the DA and police present a mountain of evidence that they already have, that judge is going to allow a trial to go on, and he may not even give me bail. That's all that this decision is doing! It allows these men to challenge their detention on the grounds that there is no evidence that they had committed, or conspired to commit a crime!! JESUS H. C*****!!!!
And I also must say, why are those on the right so pissed off at a 5-4 decision of the SCOTUS? they are coming out complaining that the SCOTUS considers itself above the POTUS of Congress, in spite of the fact that the constitution itself allows the SCOTUS to determine if a law is legal under the constitution. Just like it allows the POTUS to veto a bill sent to him by the Congress. Just like it allows that very same Congress to override his veto. Just like it allows that very same Congress to hold impeachment hearings on the POTUS, VPOTUS, and any members of the SCOTUS!
.
If memory serves me correctly, SCOTUS corinated bush POTUS a 5-4 verdict.
.
But these men are not American citizens!!!
They a ilegal combatants that will kill you as soon as look at you.
Do you think you would get the same "rights" if the roles were reversed?
DallasMike, do your homework.
An Afghan intelligence official on Mohammad Aman, held at Guantanamo Bay from late 2003-late 2006:
"This is why he was wrongly arrested." "This" refers to how his co-workers, who didn't like him because he was cranky and obnoxious, fabricated charges against Aman, who was a colonel and a desk jockey in the Afghan Defense Ministry.
The 66 former Gitmo inmates profiled by McClatchy news demonstrate that very, very few of nearly 800 men detained by the United States were, in fact, killers of any sort. Indeed, some of them actively supported the U.S. against the Taliban and al-Qaeda: "In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies."
It doesn't matter if they would treat us the same if the roles were reversed! The fact is that I'm a moral person, living in what SHOULD be a moral country! If I change my tactics to be like them "since they would be that way to me!", then I become no better than them, and they win! On the other hand, if I treat the captives that I've gathered in a real war with respect, like POWs SHOULD be treated, then I'm a better person. And if I give "enemy combatants" from a fake war the same rights that I would give any other suspected criminal in my justice system, then I'm a better person!
Please realize, the terrorists only win when we give in to their way of life! Everything else is just window dressing that bushco(tm) wants you to believe!
Of course! Non americans aren't entirely human!!! Thanks for the reminder, keeps me in my place.
How do you know who they are, DallasMike? They could be neocon political enemies and probably are. National security, my ass! The terrorists are in the White House.
"They a ilegal combatants that will kill you as soon as look at you."
If that's true why would anyone object to a fair and open trial in a civil court?
Newt thinks that if he keeps operating his mouth long enough some magic word will pop out that will put him back into the circles of power, where he held sway as a cheap bully and swindler for far too long. It seems to me he's much likelier to turn himself into a toad. Abracadabra!
He thinks that he's already found the magic words. "Lose a city."
Anything that impedes the Rublicans in their quest to turn their "Republic" into a corporate empire will cause America to lose a city.
http://www
Oh my god, we're going to lose a city! We might get hit again! There's a ticking nuclear bomb, we need to destroy with surgical precision.
What is this? A video game? Some lame war fantasy? It sure sounds that way to hear the right talk.
that's hysterically funny, as now the "lost city" count under the rethugs stands at 2,
counting Cedar Rapids!
"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."
wow, a five to four decision got us GWB, we've almost lost the whole d a m n country.
our president thinks he counts more than Congress and the Supreme Court.
Exactly. The Republicans are trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court by referring to them as nine lawyers who were not elected and saying they think they have more authority than the elected officials in congress and in the white house. Turns out, according to our Constitution, they have exactly the same authority as either one of the other two branches. It's called checks and balances, Newt, Lindsey, John and George.
Excellent post. One hardly knows where to begin.
1. I simply can't imagine a principle more fundamental to this country than habeus corpus.
2. This decision will begin to rebuild our tattered reputation, lessening the prospect of future attacks.
3. We already lost a city: New Orleans. It had nothing to do with the Guantanamo detainees.
4. If we lose a city to terrorism, it will most likely be due to inadequate port security.
5. The only relation another attack is likely to have to Guantanamo is the bitterness and rage it has engendered.
6. Everybody has an atomic bomb design (not that this has anything to do with the Supreme Court descision). The design is rudimentary. Most first-year physics graduate students understand how to build a simple atomic bomb. (Google "Little Boy". ) The trick is obtaining fissile material.
Poor Newt, he's always been hysterical. Anyone think he's angling for VP?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
