Gingrich On How To Use Free Speech To Create An Anti-Democracy In The US

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who has demonstrated examples of both hypocrisy and the fact that even intelligent , well-educated people can subscribe to the fanatical fringe, has a newsletter that continues to speak to the ultra-conservative side of politics. Proof of that ultra-conservative streak, and the fact that he, as the former holder of one of the highest offices in our nation, has never bothered to really understand the Constitution, the First Amendment, over 200 years of rulings from the Supreme Court on free speech, and the traditional understanding of free speech (never mind the First Amendment in its entirety and the separation of church and state) is his current stance on free sppech. In his latest newsletter release he has gone on a tirade against free speech in the name of preventing, and attacking, terrosism and those that seek to harm our nation and our way of life. Gingrich entitled his newsletter releases as:

The 1st Amendment Is Not a Suicide Pact: Blocking the Speech That Calls for Our Death

The rest of the missive engages the notion that allowing free speech, advocating for free speech and protecting free speech is the same as allowing our enemies to engage in activities under the cloak of free speech to harm us. He cites the letter to President Bush and other that the maniacal and fanatical president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the threat of killing large numbers of Americans as an example of how advocates of free speech are enabling terrorists to continue their evil actions and campaigns. Gingrich is using the threat that Ahmadinejad, Iran and other terrorists are posing to initiate "a serious debate about the 1st Amendment and how terrorists are abusing our rights -- using them as they once used passenger jets -- to threaten and kill Americans."

First off, let's get the record straight. Advocating the murder of anyone is not free speech, it is the beginning of a conspiracy, which is a crime in all but the most backward of nations. Since Ahmadinejad, Iran, terrorists and the nations supporting terrorists and terrorism have the means to carry out such actions, and the have the "mens rea" (mental intent or frame of mind) to commit the acts, then these statements in Ahmadinejad's letter are, in legal terms, a criminal act of conspiracy punishable by law. Indeed, any action taken to carry out the intent becomes an act of war (causus belli) and quite possibly a crime against humanity as it is indiscriminant in its focus.

Additionally, no court of competent authority has held the First Amendment to be absolute. One cannot call conspiracy free speech because it is criminal in nature. Further, courts have held that inciting others to criminal action, as in incitement to riot, is not free speech, but a crime in and of itself. One cannot falsely cry out "Fire!" in a crowded theater and expect not to be held accountable. No one can advocate the overthrow of the US government, aid and comfort our enemies, or use the umbrella of "free speech" to commit treason.

So when Gingrich speaks of a debate on free speech on the basis of how criminals, terrorists and those that are the embodiemnt of evil--like those who kill indiscriminately in the name of their perverse ideologies and corrupted religiousity that are nothing less than crimes against humanity--he is offering us a classical form of the red herring.

In his speech where he introduced these matters, Gingrich said, "Either 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 [terrorists'] capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech [protections] 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."

Who is Gingrich kidding? He knows that we have a law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), that empowers our nation and its intelligence agencies and operatives to use the necessary and available technologies to monitor, intercept and act upon the very type of communication that Gingrich is speaking to in his speech. The CIA, NSA, DOD, Department of State, each branch of the military, the FBI and other agencies of the federal government all have intelligence and surveillance capabilities and operations that are tapping into communications, as well as monitoring those that pose a threat to our nation via a network of operatives and on-the-ground agents.

On top of those realities is the fact that the Bush administration has not only returned to an era of secret spying that prompted our congress to rein in the out-of-control surveillance efforts of past presidential administration and government agencies (i.e. the FBI under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover who sucked up information better than the vacuum cleaner bearing his same surname sucked up dirt) to pass FISA, but has exceeded the abuses of the past. Bush, his cabinet and the GOP leadership have violated not only the First Amendment by attempting to restrict information and influence the media beyond past precedent, but also the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the Preamble of the Constitution.

In my view, during his term of office as the Speaker, Gingrich used the same process of using fear to motivate this nation into adopting the fear-based politics of the ultra-conservative wing of the Right, all the while kowtowing to the Religious Right, especially the Christian Right, of which he is a prominent member. Gingrich played the role of hypocrit, demagogue and ideologue. His newsletter on this topic proves that he continues to be all of those things.

Gingrich wrote, "Since I made those remarks, I've heard from many, many Americans who understand the seriousness of the threat that faces us, Americans who believe as I do that free speech should not be an acceptable cover for people who are planning to kill other people who have inalienable rights of their own."

What American of sound mind and intellect would advocate using free speech for a cover of acts that are not only criminal, but also fanatical and maniacal? Gingrich has posed a question that has no right answer. He has framed the question in the same way some immoral and unethical prosecutors conduct themselves in criminal investigations and trials. I once witnessed a prosecutor ask a man, in all sincerity, the following question: "Have you stopped beating your wife, yet? If the man asked that question answers it, he convicts himself of beating his wife, regardless of whether he ever beat his wife or not. Gingrich's premise and questions (that he presumes to answer for us) are as much a violation of logic as is the question of the prosecutor.

Gingrich poses the problem of terrorists and criminals using advanced technology to communicate as if free speech is the facilitating element to terrorism. Free speech does not facilitate terrorism. Ignorance; gullibility; perverse ideas about the inherent sacredness of others; corrupted ideas of religion, nationalism, and ethnicity; mental instability; and spiritual weakness are the facilitators of terrorism. Indeed, some of our own approaches to foreign policy and past mistakes are the facilitators (not a justification, but a rationalization) of terrorism. The lack of respect for the ideas of others, an intolerance of religion and spiritual traditions (much like that demonstrated by Gingrich over the years) outside of one's own, and hatred based on irrational fears and perverted ideology are the cause and facilitator of terrorism.

Gingrich continued to say, "A small number of others have been quick to demagogue my remarks. Missing from the debate? Any reference to the very real threats that face Americans. There was no mention of last week's letter from Iranian leader Ahmadinejad that threatens to kill Americans in large numbers if we don't submit to his demands. There has been little attention drawn to any of the many websites dedicated to training and recruiting terrorists, including a recent one that promises to train terrorists "to use the Internet for the sake of jihad." No mention of efforts by terrorist groups like Hezbollah to build "franchises" among leftist, anti-globalization groups worldwide, especially in Latin America."

Do any of these things belong in a debate on free speech? These actions, activities and events have nothing to do with free speech in America, never mind free speech as understood and established by over 200 years of precedent. Gingrich is perverting the idea of free speech into a weapon of fear that works against our own people, our own understanding of democracy, our way of life and our way of governing.

Gingrich added, "The fact is not all speech is permitted under the Constitution. The 1st Amendment does not protect lewd and libelous speech, and it should not -- and cannot in 2006 -- be used as a shield for murderers."

Neither should the issues presented by terrorists be the tool to instill unnecessary fear among our own people to facilitate his own political presence and stature, as well as lining his own pockets, which is what Gingrich is doing. He is using a red herring argument to foster a climate of fear that would build support--support that is baseless--for eroding civil liberties, protected inherent rights and for advocacy of surveillance methods employed by the Bush administration and GOP fear-mongers that are entirely contrary to our way of life.

Gingich cited former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy as saying, "With an enemy committed to terrorism, the advocacy of terrorism -- the threats, the words -- are not mere dogma, or even calls to 'action.' They are themselves weapons -- weapons of incitement and intimidation, often as effective in achieving their ends as would be firearms and explosives brandished openly."

We are not stupid, yet we are often misled by those that think we are very stupid. Gingrich must think of us as very stupid. The McCarthy quote has nothing to do with free speech, but does address the minds and intentions of those that are already declared enemies of democracy, freedom and tolerance, all of which are American ideals and values. That words can be used as weapons is nothing new to those of us that paid attention during our social studies and history lessons. Our own ancestors, founders and framers knew the power of words as weapons. They used words as weapons very well, which is why we venerate the writings of Thomas Paine ("Common Sense") and Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of Independence). Both Paine and Jefferson--as well as Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams and a host of others--understood that words are weapons. Almost all of the signers of the Declaration knew that signing that document would result in the full power of the British Empire being thrust not only against the American colonies, but also against them personally. The difference, of course, is the that the words used by our founders and framers had a base in reason, sound spirituality, natural law, common law and opposition to tyranny, including those that used corrupted religious ideology to impose their will and restrict life, liberty and happiness. Gingrich is still employing fear-mongering to twist our emotions around red herring arguments.

Gingrich advocates, "We should be allowed to close down websites that recruit suicide bombers and provide instructions to indiscriminately kill civilians by suicide or other means, or advocate killing people from the West or the destruction of Western civilization..."

Well, if these web sites were in the United States, we could do so. But as Gingrich and other GOP members have pointed out time after time, we have no jurisdiction in other nations and cannot use their laws to further our own legal matters. In fact, Gingrich and other GOP bigwigs have often gone on tirades about the use of foreign laws to justify court decisions and acts in congress.

Gingrich continued, "We should propose a Geneva-like convention for fighting terrorism that 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. A subset of this convention should define the international rules of engagement on what activities will not be protected by free speech claims..."

Hey, we're all for treaties that outlaw crimes against humanity... except when they apply to us. We have often ignored the provisions of such treaties--including the existing Geneva Conventions against torture, indiscriminate "extraordinary rendition, indefinite incarceration, etc.--when they were not to our advantage. But, setting aside our own breaches of international law and the provisions of the "treaties clause" of our own Constitution, we should not only seek a Geneva-like convention for all those things, but a Geneva-like convention that binds all nations (including the US) to recognize and protect the inherent rights of all people.

Why don't we revamp the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into a binding treaty with all nations and back it up with declared sanctions and actions that serve as consequences for any breach of the terms of the treaty? And why don't we pass an amendment to our Constitution that clearly makes the failure to adhere to ratified treaties as a crime against humanity punishable not only by impeachment, but also by a life sentence? While we're at it, why don't we go a step further and add some provisions in that amendment that limits our aid to other nations to humanitarian aid except in cases of declared war by congress, or direct act of congress affirmed by the sitting president? And why don't we add a provision that places our role in the international community in the realm of peacemaker instead of despot supporter, limiting our own actions to supporting world democracy by peaceful means rather than covert operations that are often so far removed from democracy that we end up supporting folks like Pinochet, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Netanyahu, and others that have no intention of governing in a democratic manner?

Gingrich added, "...and We need an expeditious review of current domestic law to see what changes can be made within the protections of the 1st Amendment to ensure that free speech protection claims are not used to protect the advocacy of terrorism, violent conduct or the killing of innocents."

Why advocate for unnecessary changes? The authority of the federal government to track, surveill, investigate, capture and prosecute terrorist is not in question. Free speech does not protect terrorism, conspiracy to commit terrorism, or any other criminal enterprise. We have safeguards built into our laws and our procedures, none of which have proven so restrictive as to hinder the proper prosecution of those that seek to harm us. But we do have proven abuses by the Bush administration and the GOP leadership of the last four congresses that have gone way outside of the laws of our nation, imbued our government with the stench of despotism and oppression, and violated the first principles of our nation. We do have a history that demonstrates that our government--especially our government led by Republicans and ultra-conservatives--will abuse our rights and exceed the authority granted to our political leaders if not checked.

Gingrich continues his diatribe against free speech in the name of preventing, arresting and prosecuting terrorist. But throughout his newsletter it's all the same red herring garbage. It does not reflect any of our basic American values, Christian theology or doctrine that he claims to believe, or even international law. Somebody ought to tell our "old friend" that he is advocating for the conditions that George Orwell wrote about in his novel, "1984." It appears that Orwell was only off in his prognostications by 20 years or so.