Q: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. ||||| « Rubio And Crist May Debate On Fox News | Main | Palin's Bigger Blunder » 
  
 Newt Gingrich has Tweeted that when he referred to the case of British citizen Richard Reid on the Daily Show last night, he meant to refer to Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was captured by federal authorities and turned over to the military and held by the U.S. Navy for years. Padilla was captured and not Mirandized. He was subject to harsh interrogation techniques. That, ostensibly, was Gingrich's point. But -- and this is a very simple rejoinder -- Padilla DID NOT talk when he was held incommunicado. 
  
  
  
 Mirandizing him either would not have made a difference -- OR perhaps a more hospitable interrogation might have helped to loosen his lips early on. 
  
  
  
 So Gingrich's reference -- his proof that the Bush administration used a different practice and that it worked -- is so far removed from the point that he is trying to make that it is, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, not even wrong. 
  
  ||||| Newt Gingrich tried on Wednesday to brush off the glaring gaffe he made this week on "The Daily Show" when he insisted that the Bush administration was right to read shoe bomber Richard Reid his Miranda rights because he was an American citizen. 
  
 But in doing so, the former GOP House Speaker only dug his hole deeper. 
  
 In a post on his Twitter page, Gingrich explained that when he made the Reid comment to the "Daily Show"'s Jon Stewart his reference was actually to Jose Padilla. Reid, after all, is a British citizen -- Padilla is American. 
  
 But Gingrich wasn't done there. In a dig at the Obama White House, he added to the tail end of his tweet: "Treating terrorists like criminals wrong no matter who is Pres." 
  
 That's a standard GOP talking point, and yet when President Bush moved the Padilla case from a military setting to the criminal system, it was Gingrich who came to his defense despite conservative howls of protest, a Democratic source points out. 
  
 Appearing on Fox News in November 2005, the former speaker said the following when asked whether it was "a loss" for the Bush White House to have tried Padilla in civilian courts after holding him for three-and-a-half years as an enemy combatant: 
  
 "Well, I think if they believe they have enough evidence to convict him, going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, maybe for the rest of his life without parole would not be -- would hardly be seen as a loss," Gingrich said. 
  
 The former speaker went on to note that Bush was "wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare" -- suggesting, implicitly, that a criminal setting was appropriate for Padilla because it was the most effective at the time. "[W]e don't have a good set of rules," he declared. 
  
 But that is a mirror of the Obama administration's current argument -- the one that Gingrich criticized on Twitter. |||||
A:
Maybe Newt Gingrich just ought to hold his tongue on terrorists and US law. Earlier this week the former House Speaker said shoe-bomber Richard Reid was American, and therefore was properly read his Miranda rights by the Bush administration—but Reid is British, and now Gingrich says he meant would-be domestic terrorist Jose Padilla. So, we’re good now, right? Well, not quite. Because Gingrich added on Twitter: “Treating terrorists like criminals wrong no matter who is Pres”—in line with current Republican talking points but exactly the opposite of what he said in 2005 about the Bush administration moving Padilla’s case from military to civilian court. Then, Gingrich agreed with the Bush line that there’s no set-in-stone, perfect way to try terrorists—the very stance, Sam Stein points out, he’s now criticizing from President Obama. Marc Ambinder sees another angle—Gingrich praising Bush for originally holding Padilla in a military brig and subjecting him to harsh interrogation. But, Ambinder notes for the Atlantic, Padilla didn’t talk before his eventual transfer to civilian court. “So Gingrich's reference—his proof that the Bush administration used a different practice and that it worked—is so far removed from the point that he is trying to make that it is, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, not even wrong.”