That’s just smokescreen for what Newt really wants, which is control over the populace.

And you know this… how? Are you a mentalist? It seems to me that claims to be able to read minds are hardly conducive to what I understand to be the spirit of this site.

They are used to plan the murders of innocent human beings or at the least to recruit people to commit those crimes.

The thing is … both of those things *are illegal*. That’s just smokescreen for what Newt really wants, which is control over the populace.

Am I wrong in believing that the International Criminal Court was intended to give teeth to international criminal law?

It may well have been – but there are a few problems. In at least some cases, the judges appear to be more intent at advancing political causes than worrying about objective law, for example. Unfortunately, not every nation really buys into the idea that the law is some pristine ideal to which all should be subject. Thus, the ICC becomes just another club to bash one’s enemies.

what I find problematic is that Repubs like to pick and choose which “terrorists” and terrorists groups to go after. Newt referred to “people who want to kill us.” How about anti-abortion, white supremist, or militia groups who threaten physical harm to people?

Those would be criminals, and are under the jurisdiction of the United States, making them amenable to being addressed by police action – and the total number of people killed or wounded by all of those groups combined pales before those killed regularly by terrorist attacks. It is more than reasonable to focus on those who act outside of the jurisdiction of a nation willing to bring them under control, especially when they attack citizens of other nations.

Most of these suggestions are already common practice: incitement to violence has never been protected by the First. Since gang membership has been successfully prosecuted under the VCCA/VCRA, membership in a terrorist group is not protected by the “freedom of association” clause.

To get on with the Newt suggestions: Am I wrong in believing that the International Criminal Court was intended to give teeth to international criminal law? Clinton signed on at the end of his term (thus dodging any potential prosecution for his own adventures), and Bush withdrew as a signatory (don’t know if it’s legal, but who’d make it stick if the US breaks the law? Didn’t think so.). I think that the way to deal with terrorism is by arming Special Forces squads that work for an International Criminal Court, and requiring all countries to become signatories so it has enforcement powers. People will shout “world government” and “US sovereign rights”, and they’ll be correct: I would prefer to incorporate the US into a global federation that holds our values, rather than see us eclipsed by China and incorporated into their hegemonic system. Or an Islamic Caliphate, though I believe that to be substantially less likely. The short version of all this is, “we’ve got a global institution that could be used for exactly what Newt’s talking about — why not use that, instead of talking about a new Geneva Convention and suspending the Bill of Rights?” I think Newt’s answer, were he honest, would be, “American politicians and commanders would have to answer for civilian casualties in illegal wars just as Iranian politicians and commanders would. This is unacceptable.” Would anyone care to correct me, to clarify or defend Newt’s position?

Censorship is a very slippery slope. If there is power to censor some, what stops the powers that be from censoring other material that they would rather the public did not know about.

The Internet is a record of humanity and whether you like it or not, the jihad sites will always be there and there will always be ways for people to access them if they really want to. Turning off the sites does not make them go away. It is not addressing the actual issue of why opposition to the US is so strong.

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ” ~John F. Kennedy

Perhaps America has changed…

Tom Joad
http://humanopinion.org – creating a digital human record

But what makes Newt different from most Cons, such as Katherine Harris, is that he actually thinks instead of throwing around the GOP’s hackneyed mantras.

That siad, rightwing-extremist Republicans have an absolutely awful record on the 1st Amendment. It’s quite obvious that they despise the 1st Amendment and the U.S. Constitution. In a nutshell they’re using the war on terrorism as a justification for fascism.

I have no problem with convening new Geneva Conventions for the sake of hammering out how international responses to terrorism might differ from the treatment laid out in the existing Conventions. But given our status in the world right now, I’m not so sure the U.S. could positively affect the debate in the same ways we might have a few years ago.