Gingrich Expands Bill of Rights Target List

Another Day In The Empire | November 29, 2006
Kurt Nimmo

Details have emerged concerning Newt Gingrich's attack on the Bill of Rights. It is not simply the First Amendment the American Enterprise Institute and Council on Foreign Relations neocon wants to “supervise,” but the Fourth Amendment as well, using Britain's recently imposed detention rule as a template. “The former speaker also pointed approvingly to England, where suspects in terrorism cases can be detained for several weeks without charge,” reports the New York Sun .

According to Gingrich, if we don't torch the Bill of Rights, we are “truly stupid,” because respecting our founding principles will allow al-CIA-duh to take out a city. How the CIA-ISI created organization will take out a city is not mentioned, although we can assume it will be accomplished with a “suitcase nuke,” said to be walked over the border here in the Southwest.

Never mind that “portable nuclear warheads are equipped with some protection devices… making their unauthorized use difficult, though not completely impossible,” according to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies . “The period between routine maintenance—only six months—might seem very short, but short maintenance periods appear to be a typical feature of all Soviet warheads.”

Moreover, “Russian nuclear officials and experts on the Russian and post-Soviet nuclear programs adamantly deny that al Qaeda or any other terrorist group could have bought Soviet-made suitcase nukes, which were built in the 1960s for use against NATO and U.S. targets by special Soviet military intelligence agents,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported in early 2004.

In short, even if an al-CIA-duh operative walked a suitcase nuke across the desert into the United States, the thing would be useless. But this fact doesn't stop the neocons from inventing such fantastic stories.

According to Hamid Mir , billed as Osama bin Laden's biographer, al-CIA-duh “smuggled many kilos of enriched uranium inside America for their dirty bomb projects.” Interesting how Iran apparently has a difficult time enriching uranium, but a few guys in a cave have no problem. (Mir's biographical credentials are based on the fact he interviewed Osama Bin Laden for the Daily Pakistan in 1997, a newspaper that eventually fired him.)

At any rate, Gingrich believes, in order to defeat this fairy tale threat, the United States “should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat,” in other words, Bush needs to convene more neocons and Bush insiders, as he did with the nine eleven whitewash commission, and have them decide how best to kill off the Bill of Rights because, as Gingrich insists, we are engaged in “a serious, long-term war,” for a hundred years or more, as promised.

“Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that these proposals would trigger ‘a serious debate about the First Amendment.' He also said international law must be revised to address the exigencies posed by international terrorists.”

As we know, the neocons don't do debates, so this panel would be strictly for public relations purposes—as was the 9/11 Commission Report—and, as well, a venue to spread more seriously distorted and fabricated out of whole cloth propaganda.

“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which 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,” averred Newt in an audio excerpt of his remarks, issued after the New Hampshire speech, remarkably before an audience of free speech advocates.

No word if this new Geneva Convention would cover covert action, clandestine operations, black operations, and other forms of “unconventional warfare” engaged in by the Pentagon using soldiers and operatives not in uniform.

No word, as well, if the neocon version of the Geneva Convention would cover P2OG deception operations, run by the Joint Special Operations Command, and designed to “stimulate reactions” on the part of “states/sub-state actors.”

However, considering clandestine and black op initiatives are a “growth industry,” according to Michael G. Vickers , a former Special Forces soldier and one-time CIA officer, the possibility the Pentagon will enjoy a big fat waiver is a foregone conclusion.

“Freedom of speech is non-negotiable,” writes Mark Jeffrey for the Huffington Post. “It is a core American value. It is a core value of free societies in every time and place. “To suggest that terrorism somehow changes this core value is a horrendous, unspeakable insult to those who gave their lives to protect this very freedom in America. By even causing us to consider abridging our freedoms voluntarily, the terrorists have won a profound spiritual victory. They made us doubt who we are. Or at least some of us paunchy politicians, anyway. Newt, I would even submit that by suggesting such a thing, you are guilty of aiding our enemies. You, sir, are not with America: you are with the terrorists.”

Finally, Newt Gingrich is not “guilty of aiding our enemies,” because Newt and the perfidious neocons are the enemy.