Prominent Republican wants to "reexamine freedom of speech" - New England Patriots Forums

Seymour93 · 11-29-2006, 12:27 AM

File this one under "digging their own grave"...

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...0-bbcd5baedd78

Quote:

Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech
By RILEY YATES
Union Leader Staff
Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006

MANCHESTER â€“ Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

GINGRICH

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.

***DarrylS*** · 11-29-2006, 04:42 AM

Gingrich is trying to position himself as a Republican Candidate for the Prez in '08, he has a real checkered past which will probably come back to haunt him, if you thought Clinton was a .... hound, you ain't seen nothing until the skeletons in this guys closet come out. I don't see him as being able to do much, but he is garnering a lot of attention and publicity.

***Harry Boy*** · 11-29-2006, 09:43 AM

Times Change, enemy's change, we no longer drive horse and wagons, the new enemy "USES" our freedoms in their plans to kill us and you.

If Thomas Jefferson had heard about Osama Bin Laden and The Uncle Teddy Gang he would fully agree with Newt Gingrich.

When the Constitution was written they were still using "Outhouses"

Pujo · 11-29-2006, 09:49 AM

So which freedoms do you think should be revised, Harry? How do you propose we do it, by amendment or just by ignoring the parts of the constitution we don't like?

***BelichickFan*** · 11-29-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

So which freedoms do you think should be revised, Harry? How do you propose we do it, by amendment or just by ignoring the parts of the constitution we don't like?

I know one thing, I am fine with unfettered monitoring of phone and internet communication by the government. If I were a terrorist than I am fine with the government "listening in" to see who I'm talking to if it will find other terrorists.

Sorry, it's the world we live in. As Gingrich said, better than that to lose a city.

Pujo · 11-29-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

I know one thing, I am fine with unfettered monitoring of phone and internet communication by the government. If I were a terrorist than I am fine with the government "listening in" to see who I'm talking to if it will find other terrorists.

Sorry, it's the world we live in. As Gingrich said, better than that to lose a city.

Ok, I'll play along. What safeguards would you put in place to prevent a repeat of J. Edgar Hoover's practice of using government information for personal political gain? If the process is unchecked by judges, who watches the watchers?

***BelichickFan*** · 11-29-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

Ok, I'll play along. What safeguards would you put in place to prevent a repeat of J. Edgar Hoover's practice of using government information for personal political gain? If the process is unchecked by judges, who watches the watchers?

I don't have exact limits in mind right now. But at a high level I'm more interested in "who watches the terrorists" than "who watches the watchers".

Pujo · 11-29-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

I don't have exact limits in mind right now. But at a high level I'm more interested in "who watches the terrorists" than "who watches the watchers".

You need to be interested in both. If you want to take away a safeguard (the courts) you need to replace it with another. It's not a hypothetical problem, spying powers have a history of being abused.

***BelichickFan*** · 11-29-2006, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

You need to be interested in both. If you want to take away a safeguard (the courts) you need to replace it with another. It's not a hypothetical problem, spying powers have a history of being abused.

Maybe I need to be interested in both but I'm WAY more interested in getting terrorists right now. I'm fine with helping the bigger problem by allowing unfettered spying and then dealing with what the limits should be. But right now I want to get the terrorists in any way possible.

It would suck to see NY, Boston or Chicago nuked and that's where we're heading.

Pujo · 11-29-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Maybe I need to be interested in both but I'm WAY more interested in getting terrorists right now. I'm fine with helping the bigger problem by allowing unfettered spying and then dealing with what the limits should be. But right now I want to get the terrorists in any way possible.

It would suck to see NY, Boston or Chicago nuked and that's where we're heading.

See, I think it's hundreds of time less likely that terrorists will nuke a city, compared to the likelyhood of the government spying on innocent people.

If you're willing to get the terrorists in any way possible, why not cameras in every home and business?