FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You close down any Web site that is jihadist.
MR. RUSSERT: But who makes that judgment?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Look, I—you can appoint three federal judges if you want to and say, “Review this stuff and tell us which ones to close down.” I would just like to have them be federal judges who’ve served in combat.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned, however, that with carte blanche, that the government could move in and say, “This mosque is closed, this Web site is shut down”?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That’s California state law. It’s stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech. So we’ve had a 30-year period of saying it’s OK to infringe free speech as long as it’s about politics. But now if you want to be a jihadist, and you want to go kill people, well who are we to say that’s morally wrong? I think that’s suicidal.
Perhaps even more ironic (and "suicidal") than Gingrich’s political example is that free speech rights have been held by various courts to include recipes for explosives, Ricin (and other poisons), methamphetamine, modifications to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic, instructions for “booby traps” including poisoned spikes, methods for fashioning silencers, and even the basic physics behind rudimentary atomic bombs. All of these are easily found through simple Internet searches on Google or any other popular search engine. The following titles are available through Amazon and are even conveniently linked together through the “Customers who bought this item also bought” section: The Anarchist Cookbook, The Poor Man’s James Bond, Improvised Munitions Handbook, Get Even, the Complete Book of Dirty Tricks, and Boobytraps Fm5-31. All of these works contain specific detail on lethal tactics that have been used in countless incidents to murder intelligence and law enforcement personnel worldwide.
Sometimes we are our own worst enemy, as the Improvised Munitions Handbook and Boobytraps Fm5-31 are Department of Defense publications once provided only to Special Forces and other specialized components of the military. Predictably but foolishly, a new version of a Defense field manual arrives in print and the old versions are discarded and made available for public consumption. There are handbooks for snipers, dated documents used by our own snipers, available in public libraries. Are terrorists browsing these materials and implementing them against our own troops? Of course they are. As the author of the terribly misguided Anarchist Cookbook revealed, he compiled his book in anger over the Vietnam War and the idea of being drafted into a war he opposed. The book has been a bestseller among militia and anti-government groups in the United States, and many brave law enforcement personnel have been victims of boobytraps, mines, chemical bombs, and countless other tactics because the material in the book was used as intended. Although he now regrets having published the book, he, like the Defense Department, must face the consequences of having placed these recipes and tactics in print for mass distribution.
While I agree that the First Amendment does not protect speech that calls for the overthrow of the U.S. Government or that is treasonous, I respectfully disagree with the former Speaker on the necessity of removing all Jihadist web sites from the Internet for three reasons:
1. It is not practical. There is no shortage of web sites that distribute freely or sell for profit detailed instructions for how to kill, whether that is in reference to “infidels” or law enforcement officers, or the kid in gym class that teases. Most of the web sites visited by Illinois Jihadist Talib Shareef were likely operated in foreign countries that are not bound by our First Amendment and that do not cooperate with our investigations into Jihad incitement. Unless we are willing to systematically remove any and all materials in libraries and on the Internet that contain instructions involving weapons, hand to hand combat tactics, or other means for killing, we cannot ONLY remove web sites that provide such instruction in the context of Jihad. That would, in essence, be the equivalent of sending the message, “it is OK to build bombs, cook up poisons, and learn how to snipe others as long as you are not involved in an Islamic jihad.”
2. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? This argument, usually used in the context of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, applies most readily to this issue. Do the materials that instruct readers how to build bombs and concoct poisons kill people, or should those who read and implement the tactics be responsible? The War on Terror is an ideological war. It is not the availability of this material that foments Jihad or encourages young disillusioned men to act even in a suicidal manner. The materials may serve to make his task easier once determined to carry out an attack, but they are not responsible for placing in his mind the idea that “infidels” must be killed. That came from an ideology that he learned and studied, a religious ideology, albeit a radical and evil one
3. How do we wage war on an ideology? Web sites, like our presence in Iraq, do not foment anti-Americanism or jihad. Those were preexisting conditions. If what President Bush and others in both parties have repeatedly stated is true, that terrorists represent a radical version of an otherwise peaceful religion, then “closing down” any Jihadist web site would constitute a government suppression of religious expression, as odious and evil as that religious ideology may be.
We should enlighten, instruct, edify, and convert those who hate us through living up our founding principles, while always being prepared to defend ourselves quickly and convincingly when necessary. This approach embodies the political savvy of another great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who aptly stated, “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” While the Internet is certainly used to spread hateful ideologies, it is an equally effective tool for spreading the culture and tenets of democracy. The Iranian government is working feverishly to block satellite TV and the Internet from its citizens, particularly young students, precisely because the Internet means choice. The presence of hate-filled material is not responsible for terrorism. What we should ask ourselves and our leaders is, “what are we doing to fight the ideology itself, the motivating factor that foments Islamic terrorism?” Platitudes and censorship are not effective tools in the War on Terror.
Perhaps before we "close down" jihadist web sites we should eliminate books and web sites through which our own military and law enforcement entities are making instructions for killing our intelligence operatives and military personnel readily available to the world. If the terrorists cannot learn the methods from a jihadist web site, they will simply visit their local American library, or ship directly from Amazon.com.
Defense Department Newt Gingrich Anarchist Cookbook Meet The Press War On Terror McCain-Feingold Jihad Amazon.com Illinois
No comments:
Post a Comment