Say Anything Blog

Conservatives need to stay away from this kind of talk - not only to avoid being called facist, but because as conservatives we realize that our soldiers are dying to protect our liberties, and if we start trading them for anything, those deaths will have been in vain.

Conservatives need to stay away from this kind of talk - not only to avoid being called facist, Too late; they call us fascists anyway.  The greater point is not to do anything out of fear-especially the fear that the lefties will call us bad names. but because as conservatives we realize that our soldiers are dying to protect our liberties, and if we start trading them for anything, those deaths will have been in vain.
Very specious; in time of war, some “rights” need to be temporarily suspended for the greater good, to be restored when the danger is past.  Dishonoring our soldiers would be to let the terrorists have their way in this country because we don’t have the wisdom to do the right things to stop them.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

R108,

Would you agree that the lack of enthusiasm in fighting this war contributes to our defensive, almost fearful posture at home?  Wouldn’t an agressive war effort be a huge deterrent to any further terrorists attacks and subsequently rendering these calls for limiting liberty unnecessary? Aren’t these inconveniences the result of a compassionate war effort?

Newt Gingrich is a low grade piece of shit, just like all lawyers/politicians.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

in time of war, some “rights” need to be temporarily suspended for the greater good, to be restored when the danger is past.

Robert,

There is never a time for any constitutional rights to be suspended.

What Reagan said of government programs (that they are the closet thing to eternal life) can be extended to the government suspending rights - once the government takes them those rights are gone.

There is never a time for any constitutional rights to be suspended.

Read up on WWII sometime; educate yourself.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

once the government takes them those rights are gone.

You mean like when Lincoln suspended many rights in the Civil War (started by Democrats of course) and when Wilson and FDR suspended many rights during the World Wars?

Of course I do share some apprehension.  I don’t think Gingrich is right though.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Would you agree that the lack of enthusiasm in fighting this war contributes to our defensive, almost fearful posture at home?  Wouldn’t an agressive war effort be a huge deterrent to any further terrorists attacks and subsequently rendering these calls for limiting liberty unnecessary? Aren’t these inconveniences the result of a compassionate war effort?

In any war, no matter how noble or well-justified, the majority of the civilian population is far more concerned with their comfortable lifestyle than with anything else.  If we were a nation of warriors, I would agree with you, but that is not the case.  This enemy is especially dedicated to winning by other than military force; propaganda and subversion are their main weapons, despite the seeming large amount of violent acts that appear in the news media.  All the more reason to act wisely to restrict their access to our population through the media, and especially the internet.  It’s not really “elimination” of free speech, but restriction in certain areas.  To my eyes, they have already been way too successful in “turning” parts of our population against the interests of the US.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Of course if it results in a lot of leftie reporters going to vacation up in Northern Alaska for the duration.....

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

It’s not really “elimination” of free speech, but restriction in certain areas.  To my eyes, they have already been way too successful in “turning” parts of our population against the interests of the US.

R108,

I agree in part with what you are saying.  However, there has to be ways to fight without forfeiting the conveniences of liberty.  Simply put, this war is being waged far to carefully.  A much more aggressive defense of liberty coupled with strong leadership and we wouldn’t be discussing suspending any aspect of free speech.  Pragmatically, that is not the case, but there must be other ways to fight this propaganda when the ideal is not available.  We had better learn how to wage war on the political front.

HG: I agree that this war is being waged too carefully on the military level, but that, IMO, is due to the success of the propaganda war on the part of the terrorists.  Without going into a long discussion, I would like to close with a quotation, whose authorship I don’t remember at the moment, but which says it all for me:

“The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108: I think that was Spencer Tracy.

He was quoting someone else, I think.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

From Google:

Supreme Court cognoscenti usually attribute the phrase to Justice Robert H. Jackson’s dissent in a 1949 free-speech case, Terminiello v. Chicago. The court’s majority opinion, by Justice William O. Douglas, had overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a right-wing priest whose anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rantings at a rally had incited a riot. Chicago’s breach-of-the-peace ordinance violated the First Amendment, the court held.

Where his colleagues saw free speech, Jackson, after serving as a judge at the Nuremburg war crimes trial, saw the dangers of the mob. He countered the 4-page ruling with a 24-page dissent ending: “The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Damn, r, you beat me to that. I remebered it was a Supreme Court Justice that first said it, I just could not recall when it was. I was thinking it was in the ‘20s. Thanks for the headsup!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

So it sounds like the only way to fight this war on the political front is to temporarily suspend liberties.  That’s it?That is the best we can do?  The MSM will not play along.  There has to be a more effective and permanent way to defeat anti-American propaganda.  We better figure it out.

So it sounds like the only way to fight this war on the political front is to temporarily suspend liberties.

HG, you can’t be serious.  It is but one tool in a very large strategy that needs to be employed, along with border enforcement, to name another tool.  Your thinking seems to be simplistic and limited. Study WWII sometime; it will educate you.  National security is no joke.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Robert,

I know that rights have been suspended, but in those instances I think the “good guys” would have prevailed even if the rights had not been suspended.

Suspending rights is not a power that the Executive alone should have in my view.

It is but one tool in a very large strategy that needs to be employed, along with border enforcement.

R108,
I think we may be talking past each other. 

How does border enforcement silence political propaganda?

So it sounds like the only way to fight this war on the political front is to temporarily suspend liberties.

It’s not the only way to fight this war on the political front.  Clear?  If you don’t think border enforcement is a political issue, we are definitely on different planets.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

free: This is a very serious situation; our liberty is at stake in the long run.  Under sharia law, those of us who are left will have little or no rights at all. To win this war, if we have to temporarily suspend some peactime rights to prevent enemy subversion, it is the intelligent thing to do.  Your ex post facto judgment about WWII is not accurate.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

R108,

I agree border enforcement is a political issue.  I guess I’m not being clear—My apologies. 

How does border enforcement silence, or defeat the propaganda campaign which is destroying the will to wage this war?

If our war effort is being won militarily (I believe it is) and we are losing the battle for the will to continue the war (which is clear we are), then we must turn it around.  We must win the will if we are to continue militarily.  I believe strong, articulate political leadership is the best way to win the will.  We obviously don’t have that kind of leadership in America or Iraq. I don’t think that temporily limiting freedom of speech or any other liberty is going to the propaganda campaign of the MSM, global media outlets, defeatocrats, and the terrorists. And, I may be ignorant on this one, but I don’t see how border enforcement will either.

I don’t think that temporily limiting freedom of speech or any other liberty is going to defeat the propaganda campaign of the MSM, global media outlets, defeatocrats, and the terrorists.

HG: Border enforcement is but one of many political strategies to defeat the terrorists, and suspending free speech for terrorists is another.  There are many more, and we need to employ them all in order to win against those who would destroy us and our way of life.  That is my position.  You make an argument that suspending free speech for terrorists is “the only way”, as if that somehow invalidates it as a tactic, and I have pointed out what I consider to be an error in your thinking.
I would imagine that you don’t disagree that terrorists shouldn’t be allowed the same free speech rights to promote their terrorism in our country, but fear we will mistakenly restrict the free speech rights of some innocent Americans in the process; that will undoubtedly happen, since we live in an imperfect world populated by imperfect people.  Mistakes will always happen, but the goal of preventing and defeating terrorism is a benefit that outweighs those costs, IMO.  There are obvious cases we all agree upon, like terrorists recruiting freely on TV or in our schools, for instance.  What about the NYT revealing our classified surveillance programs? What about antiwar people who, while denying it, are in fact advocating for the terrorist cause?  We have to make those decisions, but the overall goal, of saving our way of life, is ultimately more important, and it is a specious argument that those rights will not return when the war is won, and the enemy defeated.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I would imagine that you don’t disagree that terrorists shouldn’t be allowed the same free speech rights to promote their terrorism in our country, but fear we will mistakenly restrict the free speech rights of some innocent Americans in the process;

R108,

Now I see where you’re coming from.  No I do not fit this profile.  I am strictly speaking of the tactics we need to employ to fight the propaganda campaign, not the war in general.  Silencing the terrorists is not something I’m opposed to, I would like to permanently silence them all.  But suspending free speech will not silence the MSM, global media outlets, or the defeatocrats. 

The NY times revealing military secrets does not fall under free speech and as I understand they are under investigation for such activities. 

Anti-war nuts who ally with the terrorist propaganda campaign need to be shown to be the fools that they are. Strong, articulate, political leadership will do just that.

Suspending free speech is neither “the only way” nor the best way.  Terrorists don’t have free speech rights so we don’t have to suspend such.  We conservatives have not done much more than point the finger and complain about the dissemination of terrorist propaganda and anti-war sentiment by the majority of the media.  We have to do better.  We have to learn how to defeat this crap because currently we are losing on this front.

Robert,

This is a very serious situation; our liberty is at stake in the long run.

No shit sherlock.  But suspending the rights of citizens is not going to solve anything. 

Do you realize that suspending constitutional right merely proves the point of those who say it is a living document? 

To win this war, if we have to temporarily suspend some peactime rights to prevent enemy subversion, it is the intelligent thing to do.

The terrorists want to take our rights away and you think that by taking our own rights away we will defeat the terrorists?  Do you have a PhD in Fuzzy Logic?

I subscribe to the Franklin philosophy of “Those who would give up Liberty to purchase a little Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Your ex post facto judgment about WWII is not accurate.

Putting Japanese Americans in camps did not win the war one day earlier than it would have otherwise.

No shit sherlock.  But suspending the rights of citizens is not going to solve anything.

This is a completely false argument.  We propose to take away the free speech rights of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in this country who would use those free speech rights to defeat us.  Get it?

Do you realize that suspending constitutional right merely proves the point of those who say it is a living document?

No, it doesn’t do that at all.  We are simply denying the right of terrorists to recruit and propagandize in this country. We aren’t amending the Consititution here.

The terrorists want to take our rights away and you think that by taking our own rights away we will defeat the terrorists?  Do you have a PhD in Fuzzy
Logic?

Once again, it’s not “taking our rights away”, unless you think you have the “right” to undermine and help destroy this country by betraying it to the enemy.

I subscribe to the Franklin philosophy of “Those who would give up Liberty to purchase a little Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Putting Japanese Americans in camps did not win the war one day earlier than it would have otherwise.

Can you prove this?  That is why I said your ex post facto argument was false. Of course, the real parallel here is the Alien and Sedition Acts, not just the internment. No one is suggesting Muslims in this country should be interned, so you just missed on that statement. It is simply stupid to allow the enemy to recruit and undermine freely in our own country because of some fear-based rhetoric about “rights”.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Terrorists don’t have free speech rights so we don’t have to suspend such.

They do, in the MSM.  Where have you been lately?  YouTube is carrying jihadi recruiting videos; this is a definite problem.  No one is talking about “taking away the rights of citizens”, unless those citizens are involved in terrorism or in the supporting and enabling of terrorism or terrorists.  You have bought the leftie lies, I see.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

R108,

I’m usually right with you most of the time.  This time tho, I’m not exactly sure where you’re at, and vice-versa.

This is a completely false argument.  We propose to take away the free speech rights of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in this country who would use those free speech rights to defeat us.  Get it?

They are going to “use free speech against us?” Please explain how that works. 

An ignorant public is the only way that works, and that isn’t the fault of having free speech, that is the fault of the ignorant public.

It is simply stupid to allow the enemy to recruit and undermine freely in our own country because of some fear-based rhetoric about “rights”.

I thought we were fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here.  So if someone is being recruited here, we have a different problem that has nothing to do with the freedom of law abiding citizens.

I really can’t believe this debate is happening.

YouTube is carrying jihadi recruiting videos; this is a definite problem.

That’s the Free Market chief.

R108 writes: 

This is a completely false argument.  We propose to take away the free speech rights of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in this country who would use those free speech rights to defeat us.  Get it?

Well, I guess then that Woof, Don Meyer, myself and others will be deprived of our first amendment rights in R108’s world since he considers us terrorist sympathizers. 

Which is why Gingrich made a serious mistake and this will come back to haunt him when and if he decides to make a run for the prez. That and the fact he is a serial adulterer.

Puzzle, Gingrich has no chance in Hades to become president in any case.  Too many skeletons in his closet, and frankly he’s just not that likable.

I think that Robert108 is vastly in the minority on this one.  If Republicans (hypothetically) were to put this in their 2008 plank, I would vote straight Democrat just on that issue.

I think that Robert108 is vastly in the minority on this one.  If Republicans (hypothetically) were to put this in their 2008 plank, I would vote straight Democrat just on that issue.

No kidding.  This one is way out there.  The whole concept of conservatism is limited government, which inturn means maximixed freedom.

Freedom and Government are always in a constant stuggle for control, if we even hypothisize a situation where limiting freedom is a good thing, we are done as a free people.

free: Thanks once again for parroting the leftie talking points which are designed to ensure our defeat in the war on terror.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Well, I guess then that Woof, Don Meyer, myself and others will be deprived of our first amendment rights in R108’s world since he considers us terrorist sympathizers.

If any or all of you are enabling the terrorists to defeat us, then you should be at least muzzled.  Are you?

Which is why Gingrich made a serious mistake and this will come back to haunt him when and if he decides to make a run for the prez. That and the fact he is a serial adulterer.

I always get a chuckle when a leftie tries to claim any sort of moral superiority. The real serial adulterer is Clinton, of course. It’s documented, unlike the made up claims of P.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

That’s the Free Market chief.

Once again, you illustrate who you really are.  YouTube censored Michelle Malkin, but they carry the jihadi recruiting videos.  That is no free market, but then you are ignorant of the free enterprise system, after all.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

YouTube censored Michelle Malkin, but they carry the jihadi recruiting videos.

How the hell would I know that?  It’s just some stupid toy for people to watch tv for free.  You take things too seriously.

Thanks once again for parroting the leftie talking points which are designed to ensure our defeat in the war on terror.

Liberty is not a liberal talking point.

An ignorant public is the only way that works, and that isn’t the fault of having free speech, that is the fault of the ignorant public.

If the public is “ignorant” as you claim, it’s because they are getting a one-sided view of things, thanks to our MSM.  It is the “fault” of having what you call “free speech” to propagandize and lie to us, which is what the jihadis are doing.

I thought we were fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here.  So if someone is being recruited here, we have a different problem
that has nothing to do with the freedom of law abiding citizens.

They are not fighting us militarily here yet, thanks to our fighting them militarily in Iraq; they are softening us up with their propaganda here at home, though.  If people who think like you prevail, expect terror attacks here in the US.  Thanks a lot!

I really can’t believe this debate is happening.

You thought your side had us all brainwashed, I guess.  Surprise!  Guess you and your group don’t yet have us all in ideological lockstep. We still have diversity of opinion in the US. Those of us who don’t want to knuckle under to the terrorists still have a voice. I guess you don’t support my “free speech rights”, do you?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I know better than to ask this of Puzzle, but have any of the rest of you actually read Gingrich’s remarks?  Much less actually thought carefully and seriously about what measures should be taken as a matter of national policy to fight Islamist terror attacks?

The pertinent part of Newt’s speech is here,

…The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons.  And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of threats. 

Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk. 

Now, if I come to you tonight and said that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I’ve simply described the warrior culture which has been the truth for 6 or 7 thousand years. 

But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill there six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to handle.

And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is that they are arresting British citizens, born in , speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

This is a serious long term war, and it will enviably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear of biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us. 

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.

When you are done digesting what Mr. Gingrich actually said, you might wish to get a copy of Seventh District federal appeals judge and University of Chicago law professor Richard Posner’s book on terrorism and the law, called “Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency.” The Wikipedia entry for Posner says this,

…Posner argues that facing terrorism and the threat of WMDs, the scope of constitutional rights must be adjusted in a pragmatic but rational manner. Using cost-benefit analysis to balance the harm new security measures inflict on personal liberty against the increased security those measures provide, Posner comes down, in most but not quite all respects, on the side of increased government power. Posner argues that terrorist activity is sui generis--it is neither “war” nor “crime"--and it demands a tailored response, one that gives terror suspects fewer constitutional rights than persons suspected of ordinary criminal activity.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to engage in this conversation.  Unless you foolishly believe that we can just abandon Iraq, and abandon Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East and South Asia and sit comfortably and obliviously at home watching it all blow up on TV or over the internet.

Regardless of your personal opinion of Newt Gingrich, only a self-deluded fool would arbitrarily and capriciously dismiss what he’s suggesting.

Incidentally, under other, less dire circumstances, Newt has always been a strident defender of the Bill of Rights and free speech in particular.  To have raised so volatile and controversial a subject, knowing it could seriously jeopardize a potential run for the White House, is an act of courage on Newt’s part and an indication of just how seriously he views the necessity for this discussion.

Bat One, this is a first.

I’ve never really disagreed with anything you’ve said in the past.  But this talking of abridging the First Amendment is frankly just crazy talk.  It’ll never happen, and would be simply a political disaster for the Republican Party if they continue on this road.

It’s one thing to disrupt an enemy’s ability to propagandize.  That’s accepted warfare, and it’s certainly not a disruption of the freedom of speech any more than blowing the head off a terrorist is an infringement of his right to freedom of speech.

But it’s entirely another to talk about suspending the First Amendment… good grief, you’ve guys really jumped the shark on this one.

It’s one thing to disrupt an enemy’s ability to propagandize.  That’s accepted warfare, and it’s certainly not a disruption of the freedom of speech any more than blowing the head off a terrorist is an infringement of his right to freedom of speech.

This is just another propaganda campaign, just like the one that claimed the govt was “wiretapping Americans” when we monitored the microwave band to detect terrorist communications withing the US.  I can’t believe so many are buying this crap.
The whole idea here is to stop the ability of the terrorists to disseminate their lies here in our country.  It is being demonized as “an abridgement of free speech for Americans”.  See the similarity with the BS about the surveillance program?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Curtailing one’s access to the public airways was done in the 60s against the KKK, it was done to truckers in the 70s with CBs, it was done to radio stations in the 90s and the FCC has the authority to curtail hate and speech advocating the violent overthrow of the US government.  That is in our founding documents and court rulings.

Communism is evil

In the first place, Newt never said anything about taking away any rights from the American people; that is a lying exaggeration.  Read his words, not what the commenter said he said.
When we send a murderer to prison, we take away his or her civil rights to enhance the right of the law-abiding to live in peace.  That is what Newt suggested: We take away the rights of the murdering, lying terrorists to enhance the rights of the rest of us to live in peace and freedom.  I can’t believe none of you seem to be able to understand this simple concept.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Bat One,

My point is simple.  Limiting terrorist’s capacity to utilize free speech will not defeat the anti-war/terrorist propaganda campaign carried on by the MSM, global media outlets, and the American left.

Personally I was impressed with Newt until this.  I have to admit most of the things he said I agree with, and at least he is proposing something other than finger pointing and complaining about the MSM. 

To defeat the terrorists long-term, we will have to address recruiting.  But, right now there is a lack of will which threatens the ambitious goal of the war in Iraq. 

The real frustrating part is that the political leadership we so need is absent.  And the compassionate war tactics have contributed to what appears to be political desperation.  There has to be a better way to strengthen our resolve to defeat the enemy and stabilize the gov’t in Iraq. 

Silencing the terrorists won’t strengthen our resolve.  It will likely only weaken it among Americans if it even appears to come at the expense of free speech.  The problem is not the enemy’s will, it is our will.

Perhaps you guys need to work on your nuances.  This is the troubling part of Newt’s speech:

And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, [...]This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment…

They don’t have rights to free speech if they are attacking and trying to destroy us or undermine our government, so there aren’t any first amendment issues there since there are no “rights” to curtail to start with.

If it’s not addressing a suspension or an attack first amendment, then I suggest not framing it that way.

Carrick: I think Newt was referring to the way the lefties will play it when we seriously inhibit the terrorists’ ability to use our media to destroy us.  That is the misinterpretation.  The debate on the First Amendment will be as bogus as the one about monitoring their cell phones and their financial transactions.  Newt is no dummy.  This is a willful exaggeration by the reality-challenged lefties.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

My point is simple.  Limiting terrorist’s capacity to utilize free speech will not defeat the anti-war/terrorist propaganda campaign carried on by the MSM, global media outlets, and the American left.

This is just nonsense.  If the American public gets some relief from the constant onslaught of terrorist propaganda in the MSM, public opinion will change for the better.  Part of this is prosecuting those who would destroy our country, despite their phony bleating about their “rights” being taken away.  That is just their tactic to be able to continue to destroy us.  Taking down the traitors at the NYT should be the first step.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Robert,

Your paranoid.  You really are.  You’ve put together a scenario that Oliver Stone would be proud to film.

free: Nice bellybutton!  You have a license for that thing?  Thought I would give you the same amount of relevant content as your last comment.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I think Newt was referring to the way the lefties will play it when we seriously inhibit the terrorists’ ability to use our media to destroy us.

R108, The MSM is a willing accomplice, partner in crime, or ally in the anti-war/terrorist propaganda campaign.  How do you suppose to limit one without limiting the other?

Robert, Is that freeloader in drag?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

If the American public gets some relief from the constant onslaught of terrorist propaganda in the MSM, public opinion will change for the better.

That is just it.  There won’t be a relief from the anti-war/terrorist propaganda.  It is as much the MSM,and American left’s propaganda as it is the terrorists’.  I don’t think that our will is being tested by the terrorists’ propaganda as much as it is by the MSM and American left’s.

Carrick, HG, 2H9,

I would not presume to speak for Newt, but I have met him on a couple occasions (he was my congressman back before the 1994 Contract victory.) I also took his course, “Renewing American Civilization” on an audit basis (it was made available via the local cable company) when he taught at Kennesaw State.  He is one of the two brightest men I have ever known, and there is no one on the political horizon with his capacity for foresight, insight, and new ideas to address the problems we face and those we will face in the future.

All of that said, we could turn the entire Middle East and South Asia area into brightly glowing green glass.  At the other end of the spectrum, we could run and hide and pretend that whatever happens has nothing to do with us.  And in neither case are we going to be immune to the attacks of those who are sworn to destroy us and our way of life.

Obviously, we will need to choose a path somewhere between those extremes, one with a broad array of policy options.  And somewhere within that array of options will be questions such as raised here by Gingrich.

In a sense, this is rather like Richard Nixon’s opening relations with the Peoples Republic of China.  He did it because it needed to be done, and because his conservative (?), and anti-communist credentials were such that he, and he alone could do it.

Similarly, Newt is trying to open this discussion because it clearly needs to be held, and because his credentials as a conservative and as a defender of free speech are impeccable (Newt was, and is still, one of the most vociferous opponents of McCain-Feingold, which, he points out was wrong on its face, wrong constitutionally, and has accomplished none of the things its defenders said it would.)

Look at the brouhahha that arose when the NYT published the fact that the US was tracking private financial transactions, or the scathing criticisms over the NSA surveillance program.  Clearly our communications technology has far outstripped the normal parameters of our legal system, even within the realm of FISA, which is itself hopelessly outdated.  And we ignore this disparity at our direst peril.

Likewise the very real question of nuclear or biological weaponry.  Have we found WMD in Iraq?  No, not yet we haven’t.  But there is little doubt that they were there and have yet to be accounted for.  By anyone.  Likewise the joint Iraqi/Egyptian/Libyan programs that the Libyans owned up to and then abandoned.  Or the A.Q Kahn network which has to be thoroughly examined in public, and the question of just how far it extended, and who as specifically involved, and what plans and materials and expertise are now located where.  Or the very real question of so-called sleeper cells and agents here in the US.

To think that radical Islamists will not do whatever they can to obtain nuclear and biological weapons, or that they would not use them once they’ve acquired them, is sheer delusional denial of the most dangerous order.  We need to be realistic enough to understand the threat we face, and what it will take to defeat it.

And, yes, we need to do this, regardless of what the rest of the world or the international community has to say.  The IAEA, the body charged with world-wide non-proliferation and control, is part of the United Nations.  That alone should disqualify it.  It’s corrupt lineage aside, the IAEA missed Pakistan’s acquistion of nukes, India’s acquisition of nukes, the entire Khan network, the Libyan project, and then there was that little embarrassment in North Korea.  The corruption, ineptitude, and pure anti-American belligerence in the UN and other international NGO’s is obvious.  To base even a small portion of our survival chances on such is idiocy.

Without the necessary tools and policies in place, we cannot prevent an attack.  We can only respond once we actually lose a city, a port, or a major population center.  Our sworn enemies are ruthless and determined, and we are still unprepared to adequately defend ourselves.

I doubt that anyone dislikes the idea of trading of the freedom afforded us by the internet, for example, for a more realistic chance at defeating those who would destroy us more than Newt Gingrich.  But we didn’t have this conversation among ourselves prior to 9/11, and it is now apparent that if we had, and if we had actually taken the threat seriously, that tragedy might well have been prevented.  Just as we prevented “Bojinko” and this past year’s London airline bombing plot.

Should we not now be doing what we ought to have done 5 or more years ago?

“Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”

President Abraham Lincoln, defending his policy of selective suspension of habeas corpus during the US Civil War.

Bat One:

Habeas corpus had to be suspended in that case...you can’t treat POWs as you would criminals.

There isn’t anything to suspend here, as far as I can see.  Your freedom of speech does not extend to advocating the overthrow of your country for example.

Carrick,

I don’t think you and I are as far apart here as it may seem.  However, we are quite a distance from those who refuse to see the danger for partisan convenience, or from those simply too stupid to understand. 

Does a Yemeni national arrested in Sadr City with a trunk full of Iranian C-4 type explosives and a fake Kuwaiti passport who receives and forwards terrorist funds from an account in a Pakistani bank, does this man have the same legal rights once taken into custody by the US Marines as a native New York banker arrested by the FBI for defrauding his clients?  Why should he?

And if that same Yemeni national is arrested in Knoxville while living under an assumed name with an expired student visa?  Should his internet access be quietly tracked backwards and all his contacts here and abroad be checked and re-checked?  And the contacts of those contacts as well?  And if the NSA establishes that he was being directed via an Islamist website based in Iran, should the government have the authority to hack the site, or block it completely?

Of course the hypotheticals go on, and on, and on.  But then, that’s the point of having the discussion before the event… rather than waiting for an attack to determine for us that we ought to have had the discussion much earlier.

We’ve already been through that once.  The price was nearly 3,000 killed and economic damages in the tens, or even hundreds of trillions of dollars.  With nukes, dirty bombs, and bio-weapons on the horizon, we can ill-afford to make that same mistake again.  The danger, and the need to confront it beforehand, will not be in any way diminished by any wishful ignorance on our part.

That is just it.  There won’t be a relief from the anti-war/terrorist propaganda.  It is as much the MSM,and American left’s propaganda as it is
the terrorists’.  I don’t think that our will is being tested by the terrorists’ propaganda as much as it is by the MSM and American left’s.

HG: You have all the puzzle pieces; you just can’t quite seem to put them together in the proper order.  Keep at it; you’ll get there eventually.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

R108, The MSM is a willing accomplice, partner in crime, or ally in the anti-war/terrorist propaganda campaign.  How do you suppose to limit one without limiting the other?

I never said we shouldn’t limit the MSM when they openly support the terrorists; where did you get that idea?  My point(and Newt’s, I think) is that we need to do this, despite the propaganda from the left that will claim we are depriving American citizens of their free speech “rights” to support terrorism in this country.  I have said this several times already; are you listening?  As we attempt to save this country from the terrorists, there will be people, who call themselves Americans, who will stop at nothing to prevent us from beating the terrorists.  They did it with both phone and financial surveillance programs, and are trying to do it now with Iraq.  Haven’t you been paying attention?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Having had a bit longer to evaluate it, I agree with you Bat One.

As long as we are at war, and we can establish that the communications represent a hostile threat, I think your example of the guy in Knoxville would meet any constitutional guidelines.

On the other hand, I’m not sure what the point is of talking....  the New York Times appears bent on undermining our government’s foreign policies right now.  The only way that will get fixed is when their circulation hits zero.

On the other hand, I’m not sure what the point is of talking....  the New York Times appears bent on undermining our government’s foreign policies right now.

Carrick,

True enough, but this will last only so long as there are Republicans in positions of authority to be attacked.  Jut like the NYT coverage of the economy has changed so remarkable and predictably now that the Dems control Congress, so it will be with foreign affairs and national security if the left ever re-takes the White House.  In that event, I expect that MSM editorial support for the War on Terror and specifically the war in Iraq will go up immeasurably.  Such is the nature of leftwing hypocrisy.

As for the NYT itself, the rumor today is that “Hank” Greenberg of AIG, CIA, CFR, fame is negotiating to buy the entire New York Times company.  Another year under the combined idiocy of Sulzberger and Keller, and there may not be anything left to buy.

Bat One:

Another year under the combined idiocy of Sulzberger and Keller, and there may not be anything left to buy.

We can only hope so.  This newspaper has no business existing.  They have done more damage to us in the war on terror than all of our enemies combined.

Carrick,

I agree.  Kellor should be jailed for treason.  Sulzberger should be on probation, at the very least, for impersonating a grown-up and fraud.  I’m a bit more lenient toward Sulzberger, because I see him as a textbook example of how second and third generations so often fritter away the enormous wealth and power left them by their industrious forebears.

The upward, and downward, mobility available in the American economy is a lesson ironically and predictably missing from the left’s static, and statist, view of things.

I’ve enjoyed it.  Thank you!  I’m out.

Clearly we are talking about two different things—the ability of terrorists to wage war on the one hand and the will of America to finish victorious in Iraq on the other. 

Bat One, I agree with your assessment of the terrorists and the danger they pose. 
I also agree with you based upon the scenario you presented. I see no threat to free speech in your hypothetical.

On the other hand, our ambitious goal of a
democratic Iraq that is not a terrorist stronghold appears to be slipping away.  Our will to wage war in Iraq appears to be growing weaker as a result of the relentless propaganda campaign. And there is no end in sight.  The NYT is just one member of the MSM, and the MSM is just one member of the anti-war/terrorist coalition.  Severe free speech restrictions would be necessary to quiet this coalition, and surely the media frenzy to follow would only weaken our resolve.

(There seems to be tone to your last couple of posts.  It sounds as though you are looking past Iraq not counting on the goal being achieved there.  Your last post almost sounds hopeful for a democrat president in 08.)

I can appreciate Newt wanting to have this conversation—as I said earlier he is the only one I hear not simply pointing a finger or complaining. The frustrating part is that many of the problems in this war could be overcome with strong, visionary leadership. Newt seemed to be the best qualified for such a calling. 

It is necessary that America have the means to defeat propaganda campaigns with or without the leadership that alone can do the job.  We ought to be talking about this, but there has to be better ways than limiting free speech.  I hope we continue this conversation.

R108,

propaganda from the left that will claim we are depriving American citizens of their free speech “rights” to support terrorism in this country. 

Well, I guess we both acknowledge the propaganda war will continue once whatever free speech limits are put into place.  Now, seeing the damage the anti-war/terrorist coalition has done to our will using propaganda, what makes anyone think our resolve will not suffer even further in such a scenario.  If we are to look past Iraq and focus our discussion on defeating the terrorists, then that is a whole other argument. 

For instance, the American will to defeat terrorists is not the primary focus of the propaganda, Iraq is.  Currently our resolve is being tested over the ambitious goal in Iraq.  Many are calling for withdrawal from the Iraqi conflict, not the overall war on terror. There will be a split within that coalition if a propaganda campaign turned against the overall war on terror. (hey, we may be onto something here.)

Lastly, the NSA phone and financial tools being leaked is not a free speech issue and is currently under investigation.
We have been far too passive in letting people get away with what appears to be treason.

There seems to be tone to your last couple of posts.  It sounds as though you are looking past Iraq not counting on the goal being achieved there.  Your last post almost sounds hopeful for a democrat president in 08.

HG,

Pretty shrewd observation.  Actually, I’m not discounting what we will ultimately accomplish in Iraq, so much as I am convinced that it will take much longer to reach our goal, both in Iraq and throughout the rest of the Muslim world.

As for the ‘08 election, of course the outcome will depend on a number of factors, starting with who the actual candidates will be.  My point, however, is that the premier distinction between those on/in the Right and those on the Left is the fact that leftists are not burdened with principle, but rather govern their actions by hypocrisy and expediency.  And just as the media has now reported a glowing and robust economy now that the Dems have taken Congress (all as predicted by Mary Katherine), it will likely be much the same with national security and foreign policy should they regain the White House in 2008.

Well, I guess we both acknowledge the propaganda war will continue once whatever free speech limits are put into place. I agree to no such thing.  We have to do whatever it takes to damage their ability to continue their propaganda attack on America. Any efforts we make in that direction will bear fruit; I’m no defeatist. Now, seeing the damage the anti-war/terrorist coalition has done to our will using propaganda, what makes anyone think our resolve will not suffer even further in such a scenario. That is certainly true, if we do nothing. If we are to look past Iraq and focus our discussion on defeating the terrorists, then that is a whole other argument. I don’t agree.  Every battle against terrorism is important; there are no throwaways here.

For instance, the American will to defeat terrorists is not the primary focus of the propaganda, Iraq is. I disagree.  The lefties are attacking the war on terror in many ways, mostly by pretending it doesn’t exist.  How else do you interpret their contention that Iraq is just a “war for oil”?  It seems to be just about Iraq, but it’s really a denial that terrorism is a problem.  There is the 9/11 conspiracy movement, which is saying that there are no terrorists, just our govt using fear to control us, and all the rest of the terrorism deniers. Currently our resolve is being tested over the ambitious goal in Iraq.  Many are calling for withdrawal from the Iraqi conflict, not the overall war on terror. Absolutely untrue.  That is just a lie to justify their short term goal of seizing political power. There will be a split within that coalition if a propaganda campaign turned against the overall war on terror. (hey, we may be onto something here.) I doubt it. They will just shift to the next item in their terrorism denial agenda.

Lastly, the NSA phone and financial tools being leaked is not a free speech issue and is currently under investigation. They seek to make it a free speech issue; what part of that don’t you understand?
We have been far too passive in letting people get away with what appears to be treason.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

R108,

Wow! I think you have me pegged all wrong here.  Your comments are going right past me. 

You said:

My point(and Newt’s, I think) is that we need to do this, despite the propaganda from the left that will claim we are depriving American citizens of their free speech “rights” to support terrorism in this country.

According to this statement the propaganda from the MSM will continue.

I said:
“Well, I guess we both acknowledge the propaganda war will continue once whatever free speech limits are put into place.”

You responded:

I agree to no such thing.

The rest of your comments are missing my point and mischaracterizing what I am saying.  I think we will have to wait and start again from scratch on this one.  We are clearly talking past each other.

BTW, I have a great deal of respect for your and Bat One’s opinions and appreciate your comments.

HG: I appreciate your compliment.  I am simply taking you at your word.  I read what you write, and reply to what your words say.  I said that the lefties would lie, and would describe our preventing them from propagandizing for the terrorists as a violation of free speech; in other words, they will lie about it, in order to make us stop.  Like any other fight, this is a test of wills.  I read you as accepting defeat here, and saying that nothing we can do will make any difference, and I vigorously disagree with that.  We have to ignore their lies, and continue to speak and act in the truth.  They are damaging our country and we have to stop them from doing that.  It’s not a matter of conceding one thing to accomplish another; we have to stop them at every turn.  We have to refute them publicly when they try to sell their lies, and we have to use the laws of the land to stop them from publishing and broadcasting their lies; nothing less will do.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I read you as accepting defeat here, and saying that nothing we can do will make any difference, and I vigorously disagree with that.

I kinda thought so.  This is incorrect.  I’m saying that fingerpointing and complaining isn’t going to defeat the propaganda and we need to learn how to do so, and quickly. 

We have to refute them publicly when they try to sell their lies, and we have to use the laws of the land to stop them from publishing and broadcasting their lies; nothing less will do.

I whole-heartedly agree.  So far we have been very passive in prosecuting acts like those of the NYT.  Refuting them publicly is where political leadership comes in, and it is clearly lacking.  Others have refuted them publicly, but so far the propaganda continues to weaken our resolve.  Maybe we need to look to slander and liable laws as well.

libel, sorry.

HG, you are unwilling to hold those in our media responsible for their actions.

What, specifically, do you suggest we do?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2h9,

Not at all.  We have existing laws that we have allowed the MSM to violate.  At least now the NYT is being investigated for their role.  I hope they hang.

This converstation is picked up again on R108’s post.