Newt Gingrich wants new House Un-American Activities Committee

[apdst]

I thought Gingrich was a historian. HUAC wasn't created to sniff out Nazis, it was created to sniff out communists.

The HUAC was founded in 1938 And was indeed in existence to sniff out nazis, as well as communists.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee

Looks like Gingrinch isn't the one that needs to read a history book.

BTW, who was president in 1938?

 

[apdst]

Actually...I don't think it was created to find Nazis.

The HUAC was created in 1938 to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having Communist ties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee

It was created to find anyone who was disloyal, including nazis. In 1938, it was especially nazis.

 

[apdst]

It was originally created to find Nazis and Nazi sympathizers. Then it became communists. Then socialists. Then LGBT individuals. Then pretty much anyone McCarthy didn't like.

McCarthy didn't have anything to do with the HUAC

 

[apdst]

Retire Newt...and take Trump with you.

Amazing.

Many months ago, I loathed the idea of yet another Bush running the Reps. Now I would take his establishment boredom over Trump's buffoonery in a second.

America is in a sad state.

At least Trump isn't the subject of a federal investigation.

 

[matchlight]

That's a double edge sword.

Today it is ISIS/ISIL.

Tomorrow? Some American based "patriotic" organization.

The day after? Anyone who opposes the Party line?

NO, we cannot allow a new McCarthyist witch-hunt. Guilt by innuendo.

All I am saying is that individual rights not be violated absent due process of law.

Your use of the term "McCarthyist witch-hunt" betrays that what you think you know about Sen. Joe McCarthy's activities in the early 1950's is far from the truth. Millions of pages of documents, including decrypts of intercepted diplomatic cables and detailed FBI files, have come to light decades after McCarthy's time in the Senate. They show that if anything, the penetration of federal government agencies, largely directed by Moscow, was an even more serious threat to our national security than McCarthy and others who were concerned about the problem suspected. The man who probably appreciated better than anyone else the vast scale of this conspiracy to subvert our government was FBI Director Hoover, but his repeated warnings to both President Truman and senior officials in the Executive Branch largely fell on deaf ears.

I think Speaker Gingrich has a good idea, and I hope a committee to investigate Muslim jihadists will be formed. Congress has power to make private persons appear before it and answer its questions, if it has reason to believe those persons are conspiring with hostile foreign organizations to harm this country's government or its citizens, or are otherwise involved in subversive activities. But Gingrich's claim that the House Committee on Un-American Activities was formed to investigate Nazis is not accurate. From its beginnings as a special unit in 1938, the committee's main concern was not Nazi subversion, but Communist subversion. Rep. Martin Dies of Texas, the committee's first chariman and for a long time its leading light, was investigating much the same problem that was to concern Sen. McCarthy and others in Congress a decade later.

 

[Objective Voice]

(CNN)Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is calling for the creation of a new House Committee on Un-American Activities, invoking the infamous "Red Scare"-era congressional body as a blueprint for weeding out American ISIS adherents and sympathizers.

"We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis," he said during an appearance on "Fox and Friends" this week. "We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We're going to presently have to go take the similar steps here."

That's a double edge sword.

Today it is ISIS/ISIL.

Tomorrow? Some American based "patriotic" organization.

The day after? Anyone who opposes the Party line?

NO, we cannot allow a new McCarthyist witch-hunt. Guilt by innuendo.

All I am saying is that individual rights not be violated absent due process of law.

Oh, yes, that infamous slippery slope. One must be careful that the scale of liberty doesn't get tilted too far towards levels of injustice. Otherwise, wrongful persecution could run rapid.

 

[apdst]

Oh, yes, that infamous slippery slope. One must be careful that the scale of liberty doesn't get tilted too far towards levels of injustice. Otherwise, wrongful persecution could run rapid.

Kinda like the terror watch list?

 

[Ntharotep]

Learning from history is not a GOP strong suit. Some days, I can't tell which party needs to be destroyed more.

The answer is yes. Abolish political parties.

Retire Newt...and take Trump with you.
Amazing.
Many months ago, I loathed the idea of yet another Bush running the Reps. Now I would take his establishment boredom over Trump's buffoonery in a second.
America is in a sad state.

All of America has moved to Iowa?

On a serious note I never thought we could be looking at a dimer future than Bush and then Obama. If this keeps up, the 2020 ticket will be Hitler or Manson.

 

[Objective Voice]

Kinda like the terror watch list?

Not exactly...

No one is persecuted whose name appears on the DHS/FBI/CIA terror watch list. Even those who are on the list are still free to move about the country and otherwise go about their daily lives.

Now, I would agree that some people do need to be closely monitored - those who have close ties to terrorist but haven't committed a crime otherwise, those who are suspected of being involved with terrorist activity, those who have traveled abroad to areas that could be classified as terrorist safe-havens, etc., etc. - and certain freedoms restricted (i.e., gun ownership, the ability to travel abroad) until cleared. You just have to be smart about it. I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with this.

 

[apdst]

Not exactly...

No one is persecuted whose name appears on the DHS/FBI/CIA terror watch list. Even those who are on the list are still free to move about the country and otherwise go about their daily lives.

Now, I would agree that some people do need to be closely monitored - those who have close ties to terrorist but haven't committed a crime otherwise, those who are suspected of being involved with terrorist activity, those who have traveled abroad to areas that could be classified as terrorist safe-havens, etc., etc. - and certain freedoms restricted (i.e., gun ownership, the ability to travel abroad) until cleared. You just have to be smart about it. I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with this.

Yeah, the terror watch list doesn't do anything but stop American citizens of their civil rights. Since Obama likes the terror watch list, the terror watch list is awesome, all of a sudden...lol

 

[apdst]

The answer is yes. Abolish political parties.


All of America has moved to Iowa?

On a serious note I never thought we could be looking at a dimer future than Bush and then Obama. If this keeps up, the 2020 ticket will be Hitler or Manson.

The commies and the fascists abolished political parties. How did that work out?

 

[Captain Adverse]

1. McCarthy had nothing to do with the HUAC.

Sorry, I don't recall saying Joe McCarthy was a member of the House Un-American Affairs Committee.

I believe I said was "we cannot allow a new McCarthyist witch-hunt."

This because:

n 1953, McCarthy was made chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations. [T]he Committee on Government Operations included the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and the mandate of this subcommittee was sufficiently flexible to allow McCarthy to use it for his own investigations of Communists in the government. The term "McCarthyism", coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist activities. Today, the term is used more generally in reference to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.

We already have the terrorist watch list and the No-Fly list, both of which merely require any slightest link to a know terrorist or terrorist group to be placed on.

The old HUAC was as bad as McCarthy and led to things like the Hollywood Blacklist. Meanwhile:

In the wake of the downfall of McCarthy (who never served in the House, nor HUAC), the prestige of HUAC began a gradual decline beginning in the late 1950s. By 1959, the committee was being denounced by former President Harry S. Truman as the "most un-American thing in the country today."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee

Read through that wiki article.

3. All I said was that we need to track down ISIS supporters/sympathizers/members. I never said that The Constitution be thrown out the window to do it.

Supporters and sympathizers? Exactly what does that mean?

If you are old enough to recall back in the 60's there were many Americans labeled "supporters and sympathizers" of communism for opposition to the Vietnam War. In the South, Freedom Riders were often called commies. Blacklists are formed simply because people don't agree with the Party line and are judged Un-American.

This simply for expressing opposition to policies or organizing support for opposition thought...ALL guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Sooo.....NO! I don't agree with such tactics. If one is an ACTIVE terrorist, then the full weight of law and justice should be applied.

Otherwise? Freedom should always trump Fear!

 

[apdst]

Sorry, I don't recall saying Joe McCarthy was a member of the House Un-American Affairs Committee.

I believe I said was "we cannot allow a new McCarthyist witch-hunt."

This because:



We already have the terrorist watch list and the No-Fly list, both of which merely require any slightest link to a know terrorist or terrorist group to be placed on.

The old HUAC was as bad as McCarthy and led to things like the Hollywood Blacklist. Meanwhile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee

Read through that wiki article.



Supporters and sympathizers? Exactly what does that mean?

If you are old enough to recall back in the 60's there were many Americans labeled "supporters and sympathizers" of communism for opposition to the Vietnam War. In the South, Freedom Riders were often called commies. Blacklists are formed simply because people don't agree with the Party line and are judged Un-American.

This simply for expressing opposition to policies or support for opposition thought...ALL guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Sooo.....NO! I don't agree with such tactics. If one is an ACTIVE terrorist, then the full weight of law and justice should be applied. Otherwise, Freedom trumps fear!

Well, you all keep saying the HUAC did whatever McCarthy wanted. What else am I to gain from that continual association of McCarthy with the HUAC?

 

[Lutherf]

While I'm not convinced that re-instituting the HUAC is a necessary (or even good) idea we do need to come to a general understanding that radical factions within the Islamist tradition have declared war on the world at large. We need to address this threat as we would any other war and that begins with the acknowledgement and understanding that terrorists associated with ISIS, al Quaeda, Boko Haram and other such groups are enemy combatants and not just run of the mill criminals.

 

[faithful_servant]

There is no good about this.

If it prevented another mass killing, would that be good???

 

[Captain Adverse]

Well, you all keep saying the HUAC did whatever McCarthy wanted. What else am I to gain from that continual association of McCarthy with the HUAC?

Who all?

Please cite in ANY thread of this Forum where I have ever mentioned that the HUAC did "whatever McCarthy wanted?"

Now I provided not only support for my position, but a definition of McCarthyism in that post you just quoted. But in case you missed it, here is it again:

The term "McCarthyism", coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist activities. Today, the term is used more generally in reference to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.

Back them it was "Communism." Today the cry is either "Radical Islamism," or more typically "Terrorism."

This is a problem I have in many areas of American politics; this penchant to label in order to stop thinking and instead elicit an immediate and negative emotional reaction.

 

[Captain Adverse]

No, not really. Give me Liberty or give me Death.

Thanks,

You saved me from having to reply.

 

[Lovebug]

Gingrich should retire, but identifying enemies isn't necessarily a bad thing, within reason.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Done correctly, such a plan should bring due process into the picture.

Instead of finding a problem and throwing out the whole thing, lets figure out what's good about this, and then use that, coupled with clear definitions, limits and procedures to ensure that it doesn't get abused.

When discussing a new HUAC we are dealing with POLITICIANS here.

They seldom do things "correctly" because they are typically more interested in achieving notoriety in order to gain influence and get re-elected.

Now I don't pretend to know what the solution really is, although like anyone else I have some suggestions.

What I do know is that variations of Same S**t, Different Day is no answer.

 

[faithful_servant]

When discussing a new HUAC we are dealing with POLITICIANS here.

They seldom do things "correctly" because they are typically more interested in achieving notoriety in order to gain influence and get re-elected.

Now I don't pretend to know what the solution really is, although like anyone else I have some suggestions.

What I do know is that variations of Same S**t, Different Day is no answer.

Term limits Baby!!! :mrgreen:

There is a way to do this and do it right. It would take a substantial amount of work to do it, but it could be done without violating anyone's rights

 

[Captain Adverse]

Your use of the term "McCarthyist witch-hunt" betrays that what you think you know about Sen. Joe McCarthy's activities in the early 1950's is far from the truth. Millions of pages of documents, including decrypts of intercepted diplomatic cables and detailed FBI files, have come to light decades after McCarthy's time in the Senate. They show that if anything, the penetration of federal government agencies, largely directed by Moscow, was an even more serious threat to our national security than McCarthy and others who were concerned about the problem suspected. The man who probably appreciated better than anyone else the vast scale of this conspiracy to subvert our government was FBI Director Hoover, but his repeated warnings to both President Truman and senior officials in the Executive Branch largely fell on deaf ears.

I think Speaker Gingrich has a good idea, and I hope a committee to investigate Muslim jihadists will be formed. Congress has power to make private persons appear before it and answer its questions, if it has reason to believe those persons are conspiring with hostile foreign organizations to harm this country's government or its citizens, or are otherwise involved in subversive activities. But Gingrich's claim that the House Committee on Un-American Activities was formed to investigate Nazis is not accurate. From its beginnings as a special unit in 1938, the committee's main concern was not Nazi subversion, but Communist subversion. Rep. Martin Dies of Texas, the committee's first chariman and for a long time its leading light, was investigating much the same problem that was to concern Sen. McCarthy and others in Congress a decade later.

Only a complete fool would believe that there was no espionage and subversion going on during the Cold War.

Both sides had moles in all levels of government, that is not in dispute.

Just as no one in their right minds would dispute that a very active terrorist threat faces the USA from various militant forces, including members of Islamist groups.

It is the TACTICS used by McCarthy that were a problem. Guilt by mere accusation leading to public exile. Think of convicted sex offenders and how they are treated in public today to get an idea of how an accused communist would be treated back in the 50's.

Politicians seldom make the best investigators. They have too many other goals and hidden agendas IMO to do a good job.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Oh, yes, that infamous slippery slope. One must be careful that the scale of liberty doesn't get tilted too far towards levels of injustice. Otherwise, wrongful persecution could run rapid.

I know you meant this facetiously, but despite the mocking tone that is EXACTLY correct.

What's that old saying? Out of the mouths of babes... :coffeepap:

 

[Napoleon]

If it prevented another mass killing, would that be good???

Is preventing a mass killing good? Yes. Do I trust our imbecile representatives enough to place the fate of our national security in the hands of a congressional committee? No.

 

[sanman]

No, not really. Give me Liberty or give me Death.

That should be: "Give me Liberty from Terrorism or give me Death."

Because goodness know, the terrorists certainly aren't freedom fighters.

 

[faithful_servant]

Is preventing a mass killing good? Yes. Do I trust our imbecile representatives enough to place the fate of our national security in the hands of a congressional committee? No.

Then we need new Congresscritters... Just because an idea has some flaws does not mean that you have to throw it out completely. Take the good, toss and/or fix the bad and make it work to accomplish the goals that it needs to accomplish. Right now, we need a way to legally intervene with people who show high risk behavior (with clear definitions about what that is and STRONG oversight on what the intervention looks like). This is at least a step in that direction. It's not perfect, it's not complete, but at least it's starting the conversation...