• commentary
  • MONDAY JANUARY 22 2007 5:00 PM

Attorney General Doesn't Believe Habeas Corpus is a Right

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.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

JAN 22, 2007 06:59 PM

oyaji said:

NickFaust said:
I am waiting for one of our conservative friends to come on and tell us how we have this all wrong and Gonzales is exactly right.



SPOILERS! (Click to view)



ill do it!


no, no, dont you guys get it? habeus corpus cant be taken AWAY, but hasnt been expressly GIVEN. for instance, george bush needs to give you the right to habeus corpsus in order to make it illegal to take it away. if he doesnt give it to you, he cant take it away, like ice cream, or social security.

in other words, lincoln took habeus corpus away, but never expressly said, i give habeus corpus back since the war is over. or he never said it three times in a row.

Signon

Signon

Austin, TX
June 2005

JAN 22, 2007 07:22 PM

thaddeusmutton said:

I'm trying to think of a way how, but nothing's coming. Luckily, I have a full can of spray paint.



Let me guess.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

WADO

WADO

Brooklyn, NY
March 2006

JAN 22, 2007 07:41 PM

Seriously, in the one constitutional history class I took it was presented several times that the very fact the only mention of the habeas corpus is in outlining when it can be suspended indemnifies for everyone. It is what I believe is called a reductive argument.

Alberto Gonzales must be a terrorist!

DyeWhiteGirls

DyeWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
December 2003

JAN 22, 2007 07:43 PM

It's a sad day in America when the man who is charged with upholding and enforcing the laws of our land becomes so engorged with power that he believes it no longer applies to him.

I think I'll cuddle Alberto and read The Prince in a singsong voice until he falls asleep.

Oz_the_Vamp

Oz_the_Vamp

Lorain, OH
June 2005

JAN 22, 2007 07:44 PM

Arlen Specter is great. I wish I still lived in Pennsylvania!

DyeWhiteGirls

DyeWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
December 2003

JAN 22, 2007 07:45 PM

WADO said:
Seriously, in the one constitutional history class I took it was presented several times that the very fact the only mention of the habeas corpus is in outlining when it can be suspended indemnifies for everyone. It is what I believe is called a reductive argument.

Alberto Gonzales must be a terrorist!



Reductio ad absurdum. It's my favorite!

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

JAN 22, 2007 07:48 PM

question: if complete ignorance of the law isn't grounds for disbarment, what is?

EyesWideShut

EyesWideShut

Australia
October 2005

JAN 22, 2007 07:48 PM

For a non-US citizen (Australia) what disturbs me (apart from what has already been said) is that many other countries follow the example of the US, or at least use the behaviour of the US as an excuse for their own.

Signon

Signon

Austin, TX
June 2005

JAN 22, 2007 07:51 PM

MrCrisp said:
question: if complete ignorance of the law isn't grounds for disbarment, what is?



Like that's stopped Jack Thompson.

Signon

Signon

Austin, TX
June 2005

JAN 22, 2007 07:51 PM

Gilgamesh2 said:
For a non-US citizen (Australia) what disturbs me (apart from what has already been said) is that many other countries follow the example of the US, or at least use the behaviour of the US as an excuse for their own.



What disturbs me, is that habeas corpus is, AFAIK, a universal concept in democracies.

DyeWhiteGirls

DyeWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
December 2003

JAN 22, 2007 07:55 PM

Signon said:

Gilgamesh2 said:
For a non-US citizen (Australia) what disturbs me (apart from what has already been said) is that many other countries follow the example of the US, or at least use the behaviour of the US as an excuse for their own.



What disturbs me, is that habeas corpus is, AFAIK, a universal concept in democracies.


Nah, they stopped caring about that back in Oct. See: Military Commissions Act of 2006.

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

JAN 22, 2007 07:59 PM

oyaji said:

MrCrisp said:
question: if complete ignorance of the law isn't grounds for disbarment, what is?



Gross misconduct, e.g. stealing your client's money.



Of course... because I dont care if you violate ethics or anything.... just dont you touch my money bitch! tongue

AngerIsAGift

AngerIsAGift

Los Angeles, CA
September 2004

JAN 22, 2007 08:12 PM

What do you expect him to say,..... he sold his soul to the devil to get that gig!!!

Admiral_Pants

Admiral_Pants

Austin, TX
May 2004

JAN 22, 2007 08:15 PM

Signon said:

thaddeusmutton said:

I'm trying to think of a way how, but nothing's coming. Luckily, I have a full can of spray paint.



Let me guess.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?



What? No, I'm going to huff spray paint until I can think of an argument in favor of the AG's position. I thought that was clear.

DyeWhiteGirls said:

WADO said:
Seriously, in the one constitutional history class I took it was presented several times that the very fact the only mention of the habeas corpus is in outlining when it can be suspended indemnifies for everyone. It is what I believe is called a reductive argument.

Alberto Gonzales must be a terrorist!



Reductio ad absurdum. It's my favorite!



That's something different.

Darke

Darke

Columbia, MO
June 2005

JAN 22, 2007 08:20 PM

Man I hope this administration sees criminal charges when its reign is up...

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews