Gingrich Thinks SCOTUS Gitmo Decision “Could Cost Us A City”
I've already written about Andy McCarthy's extraordinary reaction to the Supreme Courts decision that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have the right to habeas corpus:
An old government friend emails with a practical response to the Supreme Court:
Let's free all Gitmo detainees...on a vast, deserted, open and contested Afghan battlefield. C-130 gunship circling overhead for security. Give them all a two minute running head start.
That was his reaction to the notion that all prisoners have a right to be tried before being locked up for life. I seriously didn't think that this could be beaten in terms of sheer crassness.
But Newt Gingrich has managed to take things a stage further. Oh, he's not calling for the prisoners to be released and shot for sport as McCarthy did, he rather feels that there might be consequences to the judges decision that the entire community might pay:
On the other hand, I will say, 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. . . . . Worse than Dred Scott, worse than–because–for this following reason: . . .It's hard to actually understand the mindset which equates giving people a trial and the utter obliteration of an entire American city, but in Gingrich's mind they are one and the same.This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you're prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers . . . .
I've said it before and I'll say it again, these people are deranged lunatics. I only see clips of American political TV on the internet, with the exception of The Daily Show which I am pleased to say we do get here, but I honestly can't imagine anyone making a comment like that to Jeremy Paxman without being laughed out of the studio.
Why are these lunatics allowed to talk this way on the airwaves without the entire nation realising that, when Gingrich talks in this way, he sounds unhinged?
The court has not called for any prisoners to be released, it has merely asked that they be given a trial.
The people who told us that they were "the worst of the worst" were the same people who said that Saddam had WMD, that there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that the US did not torture. In other words, we are talking about a group of people who have a casual relationship with the truth.
Locking people up for life without a trial is an obscenity, but to propose doing so on the say so of a group of people who have been wrong on almost everything they have ever said takes obscenity to a whole new level.
Gingrich's response, as always, is to play the fear card. What stuns me is that he is allowed to do so without becoming a figure of utter ridicule.
Hat tip to Glenn Greenwald.
Tags:
7 comments:
"Why are these lunatics allowed to talk this way on the airwaves without the entire nation realising that, when Gingrich talks in this way, he sounds unhinged?"
1. Because the nation's airwaves are owned by people who believe the same things as Gingrich does.
2. Because people are small-minded creatures, filled with fear (implanted there by Gingrich's fellow travellers).
3. Because people believe things they see on TV, even when they say they dont. No matter how stupid an idea this (or any other) may be, once it's hit the airwaves, it gets treated with the same seriousness as more reasonable ideas, because most people are too polite to bracket quotes like this with the phrase "stupid fucking idea".
Dave,
I find it profoundly depressing. In the UK a statement like that would be torn apart as it's so astonishingly bonkers when compared to what SCOTUS actually asked the government to do.
There is simply no linkage between the two things. Asking for prisoners to be given a trial and the obliteration of an American city aren't even on the same page. Nor is Gingrich even asked to explain what linkage he's trying to make, the argument then turns to why, given that America may lose a city, "won't the inexperience argument work against Obama".
What Gingrich is saying is simply accepted as a given, when it should be ridiculed.
Asking for prisoners to be given a trial and the obliteration of an American city aren't even on the same page.
Yes, of course.
What Gingrich is saying is simply accepted as a given, when it should be ridiculed.
Now, I'm not defending our media here, but if a presenter or network were to tear Gingrich apart, then they would "lose access" to a substantial portion of the Republican talking heads. No Republican will ever agree to any kind of media appearance without these kind of assurances in advance.
I recently confronted a local reporter who 'covered' one of our local House Reps about the total softball treatment of the interview. I was told, in a quite condescending manner, that the price of the interview was the advance submission of all questions to the Rep for approval, and that expecting a politician to submit to "outright hostility" was unrealistic. "I couldn't do my job if I were to hit them on every crazy thing they said", I was told.
Yes, it is depressing, isn't it?
How did the politicians become the ones with the press power, here? Why, if they pols refuse to answer questions, arent they simply ignored by the press? If they wont talk, then shouldnt get any coverage, and without any coverage, they may well be gone with the next election, because name recognition is more important than any actual stand on an issue.
That reporter may have given you his version of the truth, but I suspect it goes more like this: Editor says, "go out and get the story", then when politician refuses to cooperate with reporter because reporter asks "hard" questions (i.e., looks for truth), editor fires reporter, rather than making that lack of cooperation the story instead.
Todd, it is profoundly depressing but it doesn't have to be the way your press system appears to be skewered.
As Dave points out, the press do have real power and can simply ignore or refuse to interview someone who asks for questions in advance. Politicians need the media as much as the media needs access to those same politicians.
Of course, there will always be stations like Fox where right wingers will be asked softball questions, but here in the UK people like Paxman still ask hardball questions and our politicians are not taken seriously if they are too chicken to face him.
The assumption inherent in US politics appears to be that the power of access lies with the politicians, I would argue that this is wrong.
Politicians are answerable to the populace, and the people asking questions on behalf of the populace are the media. It is the media's duty to ask hardball questions and they let us all down when they fail to do so simply to gain access. What's the point of access if it gained only after a reassurance that you will not do the job which you are supposed to do?
Just to be clear, I'm not defending this practise or the warped definition of journalism that springs from it. I'm not contending that the reporter's response to my question was acceptable.
You asked how this kind of media response could happen, and I explained it. I think this is a consequence of 9/11 and the initial reaction to the invasion of Iraq. The media completely dropped its adversarial role because we were all 'unified', and the network bosses went about re-shaping the role of the media to that of a friendly cheerleader. And the value of such "access" to Republicans will greatly diminish once they have lost power in the drubbing I am certain will occur in November.
Oh don't worry Todd, I never for a second thought that you were defending it.
I was merely saying out loud how I think the press should react to demands for questions in advance etc,.
And I'm totally with you on the Republicans getting a drubbing come November. I think Obama will win by a landslide.
Post a Comment