BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

CULTURE

POLITICS

MUSIC

CELEB

Attorney General Doesn't Believe Habeas Corpus is a Right

MONDAY JANUARY 22 2007 5:00 PM

Submitted by legionnaire. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: Habeas Corpus, Alberto Gonzales, constitution

During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Commitee last week, attorney general Alberto Gonzales spoke on a variety of subjects, including the Bush administration's role in wiretap authorization for suspected terrorists and the FISA courts that oversee granting warrants for wiretapping. One choice comment that he made that has thus far been widely overlooked my major media outlets, however, was when he directly asserted that the constitution does not grant the right of habeas corpus to individuals being tried for crimes.

Alberto Gonzales: “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away."

Arlen Specter: “Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Alberto Gonzales: “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

Arlen Specter: “You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."

So, while there is an explicit prohibition against the government violating habeas corpus, that doesn't necessarily imply a similar right to it? Lincoln explicitly suspended habeas corpus several times during the civil war, and while his assassination may have cut short any attempt to impeach him over it its constitutionality remains dubious, and the necessity for authorizing its suspension depends on "rebellion or invasion." The Supreme Court has upheld its status as a fundamental right, citing it as "one of the centerpieces of our liberties." That it would be so casually cast aside by the man who is supposed to be safeguarding constitutional liberties as his primary job is bordering on absurdity.

60 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

punk

Phoenix, AZ

January 2004

JAN 22, 2007 05:07 PM

I really shouldn't be surprised at what comes out of the mouths of this administration any more.

Signon

Austin, TX

June 2005

JAN 22, 2007 05:13 PM

Not expressly...

Christ, does this guy even know what the Bill of Rights covers? Two amendments in it exist for no other purpose but to protect rights not expressly outlined in the Constitution!

This fucktard should be hauled out of office.

geo35

Minneapolis, MN

January 2003

JAN 22, 2007 05:20 PM

I can't say what I want to say here for fear of inviting the FBI to my door. But it would have something to do with every last neocon in the country dying of a coronary at the swearing-in of President Pelosi.

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JAN 22, 2007 05:22 PM

Arlen Specter: "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."

Ha!

Chopped_Liver

Philadelphia, PA

July 2003

JAN 22, 2007 05:24 PM

wow, for once,i find myslef agreeing with arlen specter, the man who was going to defend ira einhorn, aka, the unicorn killer.

barbquebutt

Federal Way, WA

March 2005

JAN 22, 2007 05:28 PM

ahh..i remember when i first started hating this guy...

it was a nice clear day. the sun was shining and birds were singing. i sat down to sign onto SG to look at some of my favorite sets. and much to my surprise, when i pulled up the pictures there was a nice big picture of that ugly idiot dick with some text telling me that he is taking away my right to look at naked chicks.

and to this day he keeps giving me reasons to want him to die.

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost

September 2004

JAN 22, 2007 05:30 PM

Just for the record, while it is extremely dubious to expect that Lincoln would have been impeached for suspending habeas corpus via his 1862 Proclamation the Supreme Court did take him to the woodshed in Ex Parte Marryman. The Bushies have been clever in employing an army of lawyers to argue legalistically in favor of his unlawful policies, given the plain language of a number of statutes, and 200 years of precedent, but there really isn't a first year law student who couldn't shoot holes in virtually all of their opinion papers.

Forsta

Denver, CO

June 2006

JAN 22, 2007 05:30 PM

I'll say this as humbly as I can, since I'm not a lawyer and shouldn't pretend at an excellent knowledge of the law, but all of us, perhaps especially those of us who aren't lawyers, should take a deep interest in the relationship between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Based on his comments before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales is indeed a fucktard. Habeas corpus, as far as I know, has existed in common law for nine hundred years, maybe more, and inspired one of the cornerstones of freedom in the United States. Will someone more knowledgeable in law than I am clarify this: Without habeas corpus, authorities executive and local can basically hold whoever the hell they want for basically whatever the hell they want, denying the imprisoned a right to hearing, bail, challenge, etc.? I've got that at least mostly right, yes?

As such, for even suggesting it might not be a basic right, Gonzales is indeed a fucktard of the highest order.

Dragonblade

Kaukauna, WI

February 2005

JAN 22, 2007 05:50 PM

You know what they say, birds of a feather. Give the biggest idiot the highest office, he will ensure that other idiots have their say as well.

ravenofnihil

Clarksville, TN

August 2006

JAN 22, 2007 06:17 PM

that gonzales doesn't think habeus corpus is a right is possibly one of the most retarded things i've ever heard.

under any blather that comes out of the current president's mouth.

MrStitches

Sag Harbor, NY

November 2003

JAN 22, 2007 06:18 PM

What a tool.

HeyZeus

Oakland, CA

August 2006

JAN 22, 2007 06:29 PM

There's a debate about whether rights, e.g. the right to privacy, exist if they are are not enumerated in the Constitution. (Even though to my non-legal mind the 9th amendment seems to settle this pretty clearly.)

Gonzalez seems to be such a complete moron that he's confusing this debate with the right to habeus corpus, which is written as "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended..."