Newt Gingrich - Homeland Security

Summary

Speaker Gingrich is a firm proponent of the viewpoint that the US is in a perpetual state of war which places the US and every citizen in a state of continued danger that requires the loss of some liberties to protect the nation from its enemies. He is a strong proponent of the PATRIOT Act and has advocated for extending and possibly expanding the powers granted to the government under that legislation.

In 2003, Congressman Gingrich wrote in an article warning about the possibility that the PATRIOT Act may be used in areas other than national security. He stated that he did not support such mission creep and stated that the legislation may need to be reigned in.

While Congressman Gingrich stated that he opposes the extension of the PATRIOT Act into nondefense areas, he supports a broad use of governmental powers in national security. In 2008, Congressman Gingrich wrote a scathing article against actions taken by Congress to punish telephone companies that cooperated with the US government in handing over telephone records. He asserted that FISA laws were never meant to protect terrorists and therefore the laws were not violated when companies handed over the information. He refered to punishing those phone companies for violating the law as unilateral disarmament.

In a 2009 article, Congressman Gingrich stated that it was time for the US to begin profiling passengers to rule out terrorists. He called for a "Grand National Strategy" to address the new realities of the national security problems.

During the 2012 Presidential debates, Speaker Gingrich has been very forcefull in stating that the US is in danger and the government needs additional powers to protect its citizens. In the Reagan debate, he stated that the American people need to understand that there are people out there who want to kill us and if they have an ability to sneak in weapons of mass destruction, they're going to use them. In a national security debate hosted by CNN, Congressman Gingrich stated that the PATRIOT Act may need to be extended into other areas and that the American people need to understand that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives.

Speaker Gingrich has also expressed support for making the distinction between US citizens accused of crimes and citizens accused of acts of war aligned with al-Qaida. These discussions in the debates matched the development of that legislation under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation follows the reasoning set forth by Speaker Gingrich that US citizens accused of working with al-Qaida will not be afforded civil rights as if they were accused of a crime.

In a national security debate, Speaker Gingrich drove home this support for the separation of crimes and acts of war by stating that : "If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court."

In those same debates, Speaker Gingrich was asked if he supported the assassination of American citizens overseas that were working with al-Qaida. He stated that he agreed with President Obama's actions in those matters.

Refocus the Mission

In November of 2003, Congressman Gingrich wrote an article for the San Francisco Chronicle and the American Enterprise Institute discussing the PATRIOT Act. He stated that the act needed to be reined in to prevent abuse of civil liberties.

The Policies of War Refocus the Mission
By Newt Gingrich | San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, November 11, 2003

If prosecutors lack the necessary legislation to combat serious domestic crimes, then lawmakers should seek to give prosecutors separate legislation to provide them the tools they need.

America is at war; a war that, so far, most Americans do not realize is bigger, harder and longer than any other conflict this nation has faced in its history. It is a war on international terrorism, which we as a nation must commit to use every available tool to defeat.

Since that tragic day two years ago, America has skillfully employed several legal capabilities to great effect. Overseas, our military force has successfully disrupted the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and has removed the raping, looting and murdering regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Within the United States, the Department of Homeland Security has made great strides in securing our borders and preparing first responders in the case of another domestic attack.

Yet, while we have achieved great success in these areas, we must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed, that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon.

The USA Patriot Act, enacted shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, gives intelligence and law enforcement agencies a significantly increased ability to combat terrorism. While I applaud the great successes of the Patriot Act in aiding law enforcement and intelligence agencies, agencies that have successfully disrupted terrorist plots and cells within the United States, I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes unrelated to terrorism.

Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations unconnected to terrorism or national security.

In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton acts of violence.

We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?

I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing "mission creep" into areas outside of national security.

Similarly, if prosecutors lack the necessary legislation to combat other serious domestic crimes, crimes not connected to terrorism, then lawmakers should seek to give prosecutors separate legislation to provide them the tools they need, but again not at the expense of civil rights. But in no case should prosecutors of domestic crimes seek to use tools intended for national security purposes.

This war against terrorism requires Americans and American institutions to have the "courage to be safe," this courage must include keeping to the American principles that have made this country great for more than 200 years.

Unilateral Disarmament

In February of 2008, Congressman Gingrich wrote an article detailing his views that FISA and other other Homeland Security tools should be supported in Congress.

The Unilateral Disarmament Democrats: Putting Trial Lawyers Ahead of Your Family's Safety
by Newt Gingrich
02/20/2008

It's hard to think of an action that has put as many lives at risk as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D.-Calif.) declaration of unilateral disarmament in the War on Terror last week.

By refusing to renew our ability to monitor terrorist communications overseas, Speaker Pelosi has put Americans at risk. She has blinded our counterterrorism capability and shut down America's most sophisticated defenses against the irreconcilable wing of Islam. As of midnight last Saturday, the law governing America's defense is totally inadequate to stop terrorists.

Why? Because the Democratic left believes lining the pockets of trial lawyers is more important than stopping terrorists.

Suing Telecom Companies for Helping Keep America Safe

At issue is the extension of the Protect America Act that was passed last August to allow U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor foreigner-to-foreigner communications without a warrant. Congress has known for six months that this ability under the Protect America Act was set to expire on Sunday. So last week, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority, the Senate passed legislation to prevent the authority from lapsing.

But the House Democratic leadership, led by Speaker Pelosi, refused to let the House vote on the bill. This led to a House GOP walk out led by Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), who said, "We will not stand idly by and watch the floor of the United States House of Representatives be abused for pure, political grandstanding at the expense of our national security."

Why? Not because the bill lacked bipartisan support, but because it lacked trial lawyer support. The Senate-passed bill contains a provision granting immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that have been cooperating with the government in the War on Terror.

Instead of putting her fellow Democrats in a position where they have to make a public vote in favor of trial lawyers over the safety of Americans, Speaker Pelosi opted to leave Washington for vacation.

'The President Just Wants to Protect American Telephone Companies'

As Robert Novak reported Monday, the trial lawyers -- the Democrats' most important source of political contributions -- have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking millions of dollars against phone companies for helping keep us safe by responding to the request of intelligence agencies to provide critical information about suspected terrorist communications without a warrant.

The continued cooperation of the telecom companies in monitoring terrorist communications is crucial to America's defense, which is why the Senate bill contained the immunity provision.

The simple fact is that if a company cooperates with the United States government in tracking down terrorists, it should receive our thanks and gratitude, not a lawsuit.

But some Democrats evidently don't agree. Note that House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) chose to attack the bill and the President's support for it by siding with the trial lawyers: "This is not about protecting Americans. The President just wants to protect American telephone companies."

The House's Unilateral Disarmament Contrasts Sharply With the Senate's Leadership

Speaker Pelosi's and the House Democratic leadership's unilateral disarmament contrasts sharply with the Senate Democrats who joined in the bipartisan 68-vote majority to strengthen America's defenses against terrorism.

The Senate bill was a compromise between Senate Democrats and the White House. As former Justice Official Andy McCarthy put it: "Democrats surely did not want to give President Bush this legislative victory, and President Bush certainly did not want to cave on these issues. But both sides compromised precisely because they understood that failing to do so, failing to preserve current surveillance authority, would endanger the United States."

Senate Democrats such as Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Jim Webb (Va.) deserve thanks for putting the safety of America ahead of their partisan political interests.

The Law Was Never Meant to Protect Foreign Terrorists

So what is the state of our national defenses as I write this today?

The Protect America Act amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that was passed in 1978 to protect people inside the United States from being monitored by U.S. intelligence without a warrant proving they were agents of a foreign government.

This point is crucial: FISA was never meant to apply to foreigners outside the United States communicating with other foreigners outside the United States.

For 30 years, this was the understanding of the law. But a court case last year said that foreigner-to-foreigner overseas communications now have FISA protections -- that is, they require a warrant before they can be monitored -- because technology has changed and these non-U.S. communications now technically may pass through U.S. channels in the global telecommunications network.

The result is that for U.S. intelligence to monitor suspected terrorist communications between a Pakistani and an Afghani, they have to go through the time-consuming, bureaucratic procedure of having the attorney general and others approve lengthy affidavits proving that the targets are agents of a foreign power.

As of Midnight Saturday, American Lives Are at Risk

So as of midnight last Saturday, if U.S. intelligence discovers a new terrorist threat, it must spend valuable time preparing bureaucratic documents and seeking approval of busy officials before their communications can be monitored. By the time they've jumped through the bureaucratic hoops forced on them by House Democrats, it may be too late.

What's more, American telecommunications companies are less inclined to cooperate with intelligence officials because they lack protection from lawsuits under the law.

In short, Americans are at greater risk today than we were four days ago.

But Don't Take My Word for It -- Listen to the Intelligence Professionals

But don't just take my word for it. Here's what Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell -- an intelligence professional who served under President Clinton as well as President Bush -- told "Fox News Sunday":

"Our situation now, when the terrorist threat is increasing because they've achieved -- al Qaeda's achieved de facto safe haven in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- the threat is going up.

"And therefore, we do not have the agility and the speed that we had before to be able to move and try to capture their communications to thwart their planning.

"...[Our country is in] increased danger, and it will increase more and more as time goes on. And the key is the -- if you think about the private sector global communications, many people think the government operates that.

"Ninety-eight percent of it is owned and operated by the private sector. We cannot do this mission without help and support from the private sector. And the private sector, although willingly helped us in the past, are now saying, 'You can't protect me. Why should I help you?'"

Obama and Clinton Were AWOL on Protecting Americans

The potential threat to our safety is so great that the situation calls for leaders of all political parties to come together to call for Congress to act -- without delay -- to restore these crucial authorities to U.S. intelligence.

Senators and presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama missed the vote that passed the Senate to extend the Protect America Act. But they now have an obligation to keep America safe by joining President Bush in calling for the House return to Washington and pass the Senate bill.

No presidential primary, no 12-day vacation, is more important than the safety and security of our country.

Our leaders and would-be leaders must act.

The United States Congress by its inaction has created a gap in our national defense. A gap we can now only hope will not be filled by our enemies. Congress has the solemn responsibility not to put politics over American security. The President should implore Congress, as a national security priority, to return to Washington and pass the Protect America Act to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need to defeat our enemies.

Time to Profile

In December of 2009, Congressman Gingrich wrote an article stating that it was time to start profiling individuals for the war on terror.

On Terrorism it's Time to Know, to Profile, and to Discriminate
by Newt Gingrich
12/30/2009

After the Christmas Day near disaster in Detroit, it is time for Americans to demand effective anti-terrorist actions.

Over eight years after 9/11 and 30 years after the Iranian illegal seizure of the United States embassy and the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis, Washington is still avoiding being intellectually honest about the war we are in.

Our Politically Correct Government is Making Life More Miserable For the Innocent

America is long overdue for a serious global strategy that includes targeting threats such as the terrorist killer at Fort Hood, the individuals recently arrested in Detroit, Denver and New York, and the five Americans detained in Pakistan.

The scale, persistence and sophistication of the enemy requires an honesty, a clarity, and a scale appropriate to the response.

Once again, instead of targeting the source of the threats, our politically correct government decides to make life more miserable for the travelling public by imposing hopelessly meaningless rules such as not allowing passengers to leave their seats in the last hour of the flight. Bound by cultural sensitivities, the default reaction of the bureaucracy is to review the procedures and wring its hands ineffectively.

Today, because our elites fear politically incorrect honesty, they believe that it is better to harass the innocent, delay the harmless, and risk the lives of every American than to do the obvious, the effective, and the necessary.

It’s Time to Be Honest About What We Know

Before a lot more Americans are killed we must acquire the courage to tell the truth and to act on that truth.

It is time to be honest about what we know.

We know our opponents are radical extremists of the irreconcilable wing of Islam (Islamists, some would call them).

We know they have an ideology which is anti-female, desires to impose fundamentalist Sharia as a form of law, is hostile to other religions and is prepared to kill the innocent to achieve their goals.

We know how to identify these enemies but our elites have refused to do so.

Protecting the Rights of Terrorists Has Been More Important than Protecting the Lives of Americans

In the Obama Administration, protecting the rights of terrorists has been more important than protecting the lives of Americans.

That must now change decisively.

It is time to know more about would-be terrorists, to profile for terrorists and to actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information.

The United States should track down the owners of every website that promotes terrorism and systematically root them out. It should be as dangerous to a person promoting terrorism as it is to execute an act of terrorism.

The same should apply to the electronic communications of every known radical (and using these communications to track down every unknown radical).

The United States Must Actively Root Out Every Terrorist Website

The people behind these websites should be barred from getting a U.S. visa if not in the United States (concurrently, we should make it easier -- not harder -- for non-terrorists to get visas because we want to encourage the law abiding while discriminating against the potential terrorist).

An integrated data base for threats should have been expected, we now learn that it does not exist. This must be fixed.

It should be reasonable for the flying public to have expected that when the Nigerian terrorist's father reported he was going to a terrorist training camp he should automatically have been barred from getting a visa and from flying into the United States.

We Need a “Grand National Strategy” That is Bigger Than the Debate Over Afghanistan

The emergence of Yemen as the new planning, equipping, and training center for terrorism should remind us we need a worldwide "grand national strategy" (to use the World War II term) that is far bigger than our current debate over Afghanistan.

Americans should also note that ABC News is reporting that two of the plotters to blow the Amsterdam to Detroit flight out of the air were released from Guantanamo in 2007, attended an “art rehabilitation program” in Saudi Arabia, were released and took up senior leadership positions in al Qaeda in Yemen. Americans should also know that nearly half of the remaining detainees in Guantanamo are from Yemen.

The recent arrest of five Americans in Pakistan and the report there are 25 British citizens training to be bombers in Yemen should remind us this is a global war.

Moreover, the report that 74 Guantanamo detainees who have been released are back in the war trying to kill Americans should stop any further effort to close Guantanamo or to release terrorists.

The New Honesty Should End Any Thought of a Civilian Trial in New York for KSM

This new honesty about the threat should end any thought of a civilian trial in New York for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammad with its dangers for exposing American intelligence information. All terrorists including would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be tried in military tribunals as part of a serious war strategy.

The Attorney General and every Justice Department appointee whose law firms provided pro bono counsel for terrorists should be fired and replaced with lawyers who believe the lives of Americans are more important than the rights of terrorists.

The United States must have a policy of effective interrogation to understand our enemies and disrupt their planned attacks

Reagan Debate

In September of 2011, Congressman Gingrich participated in the Republican Presidential debate at the Reagan library. He talks about his iniital support for a department of homeland security and his opposition to the way the plan has been implemented.

WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, 30 seconds. I have another line of questioning. Go ahead.

GINGRICH: Yeah, I just want to go back, frankly, to the homeland security question, because it's important for us to confront this. I helped develop the model for homeland security. It hasn't been executed well.

The fact is, we have enemies who want to use weapons against us that will lead to disasters on an enormous scale. And the original goal was to have a Homeland Security Department that could help us withstand up to three nuclear events in one morning.

And we need to understand, there are people out there who want to kill us. And if they have an ability to sneak in weapons of mass destruction, they're going to use them. We need to overhaul and reform the department, but we need some capacity to respond to massive events that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans in one morning.

CBS Foreign Policy Debate

In November of 2011, Speaker Gingrich participated in the CBS foreign policy debate. He was asked about his support for assassinating US citizens who have aligned themselves with al-Qaida. He agrees that the President has the authority to do that.

Scott Pelley: And-- and that's time, Governor. Lady-- ladies and gentlemen, -- ladies and gentlemen, the applause are lovely. But we will not have doing. Thank you very much. We'll have-- we'll have courtesy for all of the candidates on the stage. Speaker Gingrich, if I could just ask you the same question, as President of the United States, would you sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?
Newt Gingrich: Well, he's not a terrorist suspect. He's a person who was found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans.

Scott Pelley: Not-- not found guilty by a court, sir.

Newt Gingrich: He was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and reported to the president.

Scott Pelley: Well, that's ex-judicial. That's-- it's not--

Newt Gingrich: Let me-- let me-- let me tell you a story-- let me just tell you this.

Scott Pelley: --the rule of law.

Newt Gingrich: It is the rule of law. That is explicitly false. It is the rule of law.

Scott Pelley: No.

Newt Gingrich: If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court. Let me be-- let me be very clear about this. There are two levels. There's a huge gap here that-- that frankly far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense, is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war. And the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.

CNN National Security Debate

On November 22, 2011 Speaker Gingrich participated in the national security debate on CNN. He stated that he supported extending and strengthening the PATRIOT Act. He speaks about possible nuclear attacks on US cities and the difference between criminal law and national defense.

ED MEESE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists.

Shouldn't we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?

BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, only this weekend there was an alleged terror plot uncovered in New York City. What do you think?

GINGRICH: Well, I think that Attorney General Meese has raised a key point, and the key distinction for the American people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements.

I think it's desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it's a matter of criminal law. But if you're trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.

The Patriot Act has clearly been a key part of that. And I think looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives. This is not going to end in the short run. And we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities.

BLITZER: So, Speaker, just to clarify, you wouldn't change the Patriot Act?

GINGRICH: No, I would not change it. I'm not aware of any specific change it needs. And I'd look at strengthening it, because I think the dangers are literally that great. And again, I've spent years studying this stuff. You start thinking about one nuclear weapon in one American city and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that?

And you come up with a very different answer. Again, very sharp division. Criminal law, the government should be frankly on defense and you're innocent until proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives.

...

BLITZER: I want to bring others in, but do you want to respond, Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Yes. Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That's the whole point.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don't want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're going to stop you.

2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY

“We need an honest national dialogue and a determination to be candid about our opponents, honest about the problems, and passionately committed to the survival of America as a free country.” –Newt Gingrich

Keeping Americans safe is the most important duty of government. That is why the confusion and incoherence of the Obama Administration’s response to the threats facing America is so troubling. Newt advocates sound policies to keep Americans safe based on timeless American principles.

Sound policies to keep Americans safe

• Understand our enemies and tell the truth about them. We are engaged in a long war against radical Islamism, a belief system adhered to by a small minority of Muslims but nonetheless a powerful and organized ideology within Islamic thought that is totally incompatible with the modern world.
• Think big. America currently lacks a unified grand strategy for defeating radical Islamism. The result is that we currently view Iraq, Afghanistan, and the many other danger spots of the globe as if they are isolated, independent situations. Only a grand strategy for marginalizing, isolating, and defeating radical Islamists across the world will lead to victory.
• Know our values. America’s foreign policy must begin by understanding who we are as a country. We are, as Ronald Reagan said, the world’s “abiding alternative to tyranny.” Therefore, America’s foreign policy must be to ensure our own survival and protect those who share our values.
• Military force must be used judiciously and with clear, obtainable objectives understood by Congress.
• Implement an American Energy Plan to reduce the world’s dependence on oil from dangerous and unstable countries, especially in the Middle East.
• Secure the border to prevent terrorist organizations from sneaking agents and weapons into the United States.
• Incentivize math and science education in America to ensure the men and women of our Armed Forces always have the most advanced and powerful weapons in the world at their disposal.  

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.

User Comments

• • Summary
  • Election Results
  • Voting Statistics
  • Sponsored Bills
  • Controversies
  • Political Positions
  • Speeches / Debates