Newt: Obama "defend[ing] terrorists"

Continuing his return to the ugly tactics he helped popularize in the 1980s and 1990s, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested on May 24's "Meet the Press" that the Obama administration's "highest priority" is to "find some way to defend terrorists":

MR. GREGORY: But, Senator Durbin, in this case you have not just Vice President Cheney, but the majority leader of the Senate saying, "No, we don't want these detainees to come into prisons in the United States."

SEN. DURBIN: Now that President Obama has made it clear what his plan is, he'll bring that to Congress. We have successfully tried terrorists in the United States. As I sit here today, we have 347 convicted terrorists secure in our incarceration in our facilities. We know that they can be tried and held safely. I'm sure the president will be able to work this out with members of Congress.

MR. GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich.

FMR. REP. NEWT GINGRICH, (R-GA): ...[T]he question comes right down to, as Vice President Cheney said this week, what's your highest priority? Is it to defend America and protect American lives, or is it to find some way to defend terrorists and to get terrorists involved in the criminal justice system?...

This statement echoes Gingrich's suggestion on May 10 that Obama administration officials were "prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists" in previous pro bono legal work:

GINGRICH: [W]hen you look at the Obama administration, the number of attorneys they have appointed who were defending alleged terrorists -- I mean, there's this weird pattern where the Bush people wanted to defend Americans and were pretty tough on terrorists. These guys [Obama officials] are prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists.

Like the many GOP attacks on dissent since 9/11, the point of these statements is to suggest that Obama and other Democrats who have sought to ensure a fair process for detainees are sympathetic to terrorists. It's an ugly, ugly smear.

Comments

[David]

Newt said "defending", not "sympathetic". I think the word "defending" is fair.

One POV regarding the presumptive al Qaeda terrorists imprisoned at Gitmo would be to keep them locked up indefinitely, for as long as al Qaeda remiains a threat. This approach has two downsides:

-- Some in Gitmo deserve to be freed because they never were terrorists.

-- Some in Gitmo who did support al Qaeda could safely be released because they would not return to terrorism.

An alternative would be to use the US criminal justice system. This approach has two downsides:

-- Some real terrorists would have to be set free because the evidence against them doesn't meet our legal criminal standards of justice.

-- Gitmo prisoners who are convicted would nevertheless be released at the end of their sentences, even though they might still be a threat.

These are more than hypothetical concerns. The New York Times reported that about 76 of the 534 prisoners released from Gitmo returned to terrorism. No doubt a number of innocent people have been killed or injured by these 76 freed terrorists. And they will continue to kill innocent people.

ISTM the word "defend" is a fair description of both approaches. The former approach focuses more on defending potential victims of terrorism. The latter approach focuses more on defending the Gitmo prisoners and their right to a certain type of trial.

[Jinchi]

-- Some real terrorists would have to be set free because the evidence against them doesn't meet our legal criminal standards of justice
...
The New York Times reported that about 76 of the 534 prisoners released from Gitmo returned to terrorism.

Is it really possible for you to write those two sentences without seeing a flaw in your argument?

[rone]

It's a shame that we'll never know how many of those 76 weren't terrorists before being sent to GTMO.