It Could Cost Us a City
Newt Gingrich waxes hysterical about the recent decision (PDF) of the U.S. Supreme Court to restore habeas corpus to the Guantanamo prisoners, saying:
: Mr. GINGRICH: 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.
REID: In its history.
Mr. GINGRICH: In its history. Worse than Dred Scott, worse than–because–for this following reason: The court has now knowingly stepped in–and this morning’s newspapers say smugglers had actually gotten the design of a nuclear weapon, that we now have the evidence that people out there had a nuclear weapon design. And this court is saying that any random district judge, based on whatever their personal caprice is, whatever their personal ideological bias, can intervene with a terrorist in such a way–and this is something that the Italians will tell you about fighting the mafia.
He then excoriates Obama with this:
The problem with Obama is he’s wrong. It’s not that he’s inexperienced, it’s that his policies are wrong. He applauded this court decision. 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–it was a five-to-four decision, and five lawyers have decided that the Supreme Court counts more than the Congress and the president combined in national security.
Here’s my problem with Newt’s rant. The risk of losing a city to terrorist nuking is an ethereal, fear-based excuse for violating the fundamental tenets of the United States Constitution.
On the other hand, Newt and his minions were not quite as passionate about the city we already lost…
and the very real risk of losing other cities to aging levees, and government neglect.
Just some perspective, there, Newt. Do you get it yet? We are already losing cities, and it has nothing to do with terrorists.
Shall we tilt our swords at the imaginary foe, or the real one?