When we first covered this, people accused us of twisting Newt’s words. Now Newt is defending his original statements by attacking the Bill of Rights as well. In the linked article he basically says you are guilty until proven innocent, especially if you are accused of being a terrorist.
Gingrich said the threat of biological or nuclear attack requires America to consider curbs to speech to fight terrorists, if it is to protect the society that makes the First Amendment possible.
In an interview, Gingrich said it is possible to distinguish between terrorists and others when looking to fight threatening expression.
“If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you’re a terrorist, I’d say the burden of proof was on you,” Gingrich said.
Any signal? Where does that leave your rights?
The article doesn’t give enough context for Gringrich’s remarks.
The only “context” that would justify this comment, “If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you’re a terrorist, I’d say the burden of proof was on you,” is if he had preceded it with “You’d have to be real douche bag to believe…” and the journalist left that part out.
14,
Actually, John made the image switch. It is better, but that’s why he wears the big hat.
An outsiders comment: Is this guy Newt completely bonkers? Since when did praying constitute “pretending to be a terrorist”….
I questioned the previous article. I did not say anyone “twisted his words”, rather that virtually none of the article was quotes, and what was quoted was pretty meaningless. Everything else was “Newt said.” Every story about it linked back to the Union Leader. I couldn’t find any reference to it that didn’t. Call me paranoid, but when a poorly written piece in ONE paper is the only source, I prefer to wait until I can get more facts.
If the quotes in the new article are accurate, Newt has lost what credibility he had left as far as I’m concerned.
Ron Paul for President.
These people who claim to defend freedom, while limiting our civil rights do not deserve to be listened to. What if we just ignore the newt, won’t it just go away. These people want the terrorists to win, in that they want to turn this country in to a totalitarian state, rather than be a nation where the rule of law applies to EVERYONE. He also wants to shift the burden of proof to where the accused has to prove that he is NOT guilty. One of the tenets of our government is that a person is INNOCENT, until proven guilty in a court of his or her peers.
I hope the republicans run the newt for president in ’08. He WILL lose by an historical margin.
26 – Turning the US into a totalitarian state is probably just a side-effect of their main agenda. They want to merge governmental and corporate power and run everything to increase the wealth of those who are on corporate boards or wear “c”-level titles. Such a system fits Mussolini’s definition of Fascism but that’s just a coincidence. Those people are about corporate and personal advantage, and anything else, like hifalutin notions of freedom and liberty and a chicken in every pot, will be spouted only if useful to advance the main agenda. Totalitarians? Nah. They just want to be rich and powerful, and they’re unencumbered by principles.
#27, and just what does “a chicken in every pot” have to do with freedom and liberty?
What strikes me in the comments is the often-mentioned “goal” of the terrorists, destroying the U.S. and our freedoms.
Never had any of the Al Queda people stated that as a goal. The GOAL was to get us to leave the military bases in Saudi Arabia; that was bin Laden’s big beef. There is no basis in word or fact for the idea that somehow Al Queda is the new Soviet Union.
The idea for limiting your rights comes entirely from those men who drafted the Patriot Acts 1 and 2; I think we can name names: Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Ashcroft, and their ventriloquist dummy, Bush. bin Laden really doesn’t care what you say or where you travel.
27: You’ve got a good point there. These aren’t the old corporate fascists that liked Hitler and Mussolini. These new corporate people are ideological only in that they want no goovernment control –government corporate welfare, however, is just peachy, but no matter. They want power and that which power grants- wealth.
#20, Ron
The US of A IS a democracy. Like it or not, Americans exercise a republican form of government.
Our rights come from our being men. It does not come from God, some King, or any other artificial construct. We are born with these rights.
The only one who can take away our rights would be a dictator and that would be by force.
Get a book on Civics. Learn a bit about America. I don’t know where you live, but American school kids are usually required to understand the Constitution before they are allowed to graduate.
“I don’t know where you live, but American school kids are usually required to understand the Constitution before they are allowed to graduate.”
That’s probably being a bit optimistic… I’m just happy if they can make the correct change for me.
Gingrich is an ass.
“The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”
-Benjamin Franklin
I would of thought you would be for this since it means that one couldn’t express any forms of religious thought in public. At least the Muslims couldn’t and since that would give you a good excuse to attack Christians under the banner of equal treatment, you really should be for this.
Leftist already attack First Amendment rights of free speech. They classify anything they don’t like as ‘hate speech’, but that ok because it’s socialist/communist making the distinction. Really for the ACLU to be upset about this is hypocrisy at it’s finest, they read into the Bill of Rights and read out of the Bill of Rights anything that doesn’t suit their agenda of a Socialist/Communist Globalist society, but since they are winning they will get to write the history books.
Really can you tell a terrorist? If someone says that we are going to attack such and such is that free speech? If someone advocates to the overthrow of the US Government and the killing of all blacks, or white, is that free speech? If someone writes a plan to blow up something and put the plan up on the internet is that free speech? Does free speech have it’s limitations? Would tolerate someone saying that no Jews were killed by Hitler? Would you tolerate someone advocating a superior race? I doubt it, the same people the decry Newt would cry for blood with the above free speech, but true free speech has no limitations.
Under true free speech, I could put up someone address, schedule and routine. An invitation of attack yes, but it is true free speech. There are limitation to free speech, what they are has to be decided by us indirectly through a Republican form of government. This infinity better in than in Europe and rest of the World where a minority oligarchy makes such decisions, but rest assured we’re getting there and the NAU will be a big step towards that.
If we’re going to restrict speech in America then, for-the-love-of-all-that’s-good, let’s start with that blowhole Newt Gingrich.