• 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
Adarkmind

Adarkmind

Ashburn, VA
January 2007

JAN 22, 2007 08:21 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.



And more and more are jumping on the bandwagon as they see the head village idot and his gaggle of jesters continue to shred the constitution and turn this country into more and more of an openly police state. At least in the decades past they had to hide doing all this crap. This moron wants to put it out in the public eye, "Look how I can fuck with you and you can't do a thing to stop me because if you try, then that means you're a terrorist and off to GITMO you go."

The only thing worse than a paranoid, megalomaniac in the white house is when you put a bunch of yes men around him who can actually fathom doing something like this.

You know Colin Powell is sitting this out somewhere going, "Goddamn, I got out just in time."

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JAN 22, 2007 08:43 PM

oyaji said:

Adarkmind said:

You know Colin Powell is sitting this out somewhere going, "Goddamn, I got out just in time."



Just in time would have been before he debased himself at the UN shilling for this fucked up war that he knew or should have known was based on lies.



Truely. When I first read that post I was like, "nope, not by a mile."

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

JAN 22, 2007 08:52 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.



how about defrauding an entire nation?

darwinsjoke

darwinsjoke

Virginia Beach, VA
July 2003

JAN 22, 2007 09:02 PM

Habeas can't be that important can it? I mean, it's not like it's the only right mentioned in the body of the Constitution (vice in one of the Amendments) or anything is it? whatever

On a serious note, how the fuck was this moron ever allowed to practice law, let alone be a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, without knowing that?

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

JAN 22, 2007 09:18 PM

darwinsjoke said:
Habeas can't be that important can it? I mean, it's not like it's the only right mentioned in the body of the Constitution (vice in one of the Amendments) or anything is it? whatever

On a serious note, how the fuck was this moron ever allowed to practice law, let alone be a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, without knowing that?



It's who you know and what you are willing to let them get away with if they appoint you to a position of power, more importantly a position of power thats SUPPOSED to be a check on their own.....

SmilingSinner

SmilingSinner

Herndon, VA
January 2007

JAN 22, 2007 10:02 PM

Jesus Fucking Christ................................. puke

Dragonflye

Dragonflye

Australia
January 2005

JAN 22, 2007 11:59 PM

orwell was a prophet.....

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JAN 23, 2007 12:16 AM

I also am not going to claim to understand the legal system, BUT...

It seems to me Senor Gonzales is trying to make the argument that:

Just because the government can't take away X, doesn't mean you have X.

Don't you have to have something in order to proscribe the taking away of it? It seems to be a causal issue or rather a chronological issue, maybe I'm over simplifying...

To me it seems like basic logic, but then again, law seems to have it's own logic. Are there any lawyers who'd like to comment?

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JAN 23, 2007 12:46 AM

oyaji said:
A couple of lawyers have already commented to the effect that what he said is nonsense.


You seriously hate me don't you? wink

Priest_

Priest_

USA
January 2007

JAN 23, 2007 12:59 AM

His common sense is lacking, but I suppose his logic is correct. For example:

Mom tells Timmy that he's not allowed to take his brother's cookies. That doesn't mean his brother HAS cookies at the moment, just that Timmy isn't allowed to take them away if he does.

But then, the courts seem to have ruled that we all have a right to habeus corpus. Therefore, we've been given that right. Since the constitution says it can't be taken away (with exceptions) its common sense that we still have that right.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JAN 23, 2007 01:03 AM

RagingSphinx said:
His common sense is lacking, but I suppose his logic is correct. For example:

Mom tells Timmy that he's not allowed to take his brother's cookies. That doesn't mean his brother HAS cookies at the moment, just that Timmy isn't allowed to take them away if he does.

But then, the courts seem to have ruled that we all have a right to habeus corpus. Therefore, we've been given that right. Since the constitution says it can't be taken away (with exceptions) its common sense that we still have that right.



So you just argued against yourself? I'm confused. It's like you speak in a vacuum.

Priest_

Priest_

USA
January 2007

JAN 23, 2007 01:03 AM

emotedcreations said:
I also am not going to claim to understand the legal system, BUT...

It seems to me Senor Gonzales is trying to make the argument that:

Just because the government can't take away X, doesn't mean you have X.

Don't you have to have something in order to proscribe the taking away of it? It seems to be a causal issue or rather a chronological issue, maybe I'm over simplifying...

To me it seems like basic logic, but then again, law seems to have it's own logic. Are there any lawyers who'd like to comment?




I already kinda made an analogy, but here goes again. The prohibition against taking something doesn't automatically infer that it's there to be taken.

Another example, perhaps not as good, but anyway. There's a prohibition against theft. That is regardless of whether or not someone protected by that prohibition has anything to steal (as might be the case if someone is broke, homeless, and has no possessions). It just means that at the moment the prohibition is meaningless.

Priest_

Priest_

USA
January 2007

JAN 23, 2007 01:06 AM

emotedcreations said:

RagingSphinx said:
His common sense is lacking, but I suppose his logic is correct. For example:

Mom tells Timmy that he's not allowed to take his brother's cookies. That doesn't mean his brother HAS cookies at the moment, just that Timmy isn't allowed to take them away if he does.

But then, the courts seem to have ruled that we all have a right to habeus corpus. Therefore, we've been given that right. Since the constitution says it can't be taken away (with exceptions) its common sense that we still have that right.



So you just argued against yourself? I'm confused. It's like you speak in a vacuum.



His logic is technically correct. There's no express guarantee of habeaus in the constitution. There's only an express prohibition against taking habeaus away. As I pointed out, you can prohibit someone from taking something that isn't there at the moment. It's just meaningless.

But in this case, common sense says that the intent was for there to be an implied right to habeaus along with the express probition against taking it away.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JAN 23, 2007 01:11 AM

RagingSphinx said:

emotedcreations said:
I also am not going to claim to understand the legal system, BUT...

It seems to me Senor Gonzales is trying to make the argument that:

Just because the government can't take away X, doesn't mean you have X.

Don't you have to have something in order to proscribe the taking away of it? It seems to be a causal issue or rather a chronological issue, maybe I'm over simplifying...

To me it seems like basic logic, but then again, law seems to have it's own logic. Are there any lawyers who'd like to comment?




I already kinda made an analogy, but here goes again. The prohibition against taking something doesn't automatically infer that it's there to be taken.

Another example, perhaps not as good, but anyway. There's a prohibition against theft. That is regardless of whether or not someone protected by that prohibition has anything to steal (as might be the case if someone is broke, homeless, and has no possessions). It just means that at the moment the prohibition is meaningless.


But HC is established. So the analogy doesn't work. You're stealing the homeless man's bread.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JAN 23, 2007 01:26 AM

RagingSphinx said:

emotedcreations said:

RagingSphinx said:
His common sense is lacking, but I suppose his logic is correct. For example:

Mom tells Timmy that he's not allowed to take his brother's cookies. That doesn't mean his brother HAS cookies at the moment, just that Timmy isn't allowed to take them away if he does.

But then, the courts seem to have ruled that we all have a right to habeus corpus. Therefore, we've been given that right. Since the constitution says it can't be taken away (with exceptions) its common sense that we still have that right.



So you just argued against yourself? I'm confused. It's like you speak in a vacuum.



His logic is technically correct. There's no express guarantee of habeaus in the constitution. There's only an express prohibition against taking habeaus away. As I pointed out, you can prohibit someone from taking something that isn't there at the moment. It's just meaningless.

But in this case, common sense says that the intent was for there to be an implied right to habeaus along with the express probition against taking it away.



A prohibition against X implicitly prescribes the right to X. That's logic. Literally, if not p then q. Again, in response to the homeless example, just because a man doesn't have something to be stolen does NOT mean that he loses his right to not have stuff stolen from him. In this case, his material status is not indicative of his rights. He still has rights rights to material posessions regardless of his ability to obtain or retain them. Similarly, one has the right to life regardless of his ability to stay alive. So to say one does not have the right to something simply because they do not possess it is REDiculous..................................reductum ad absurdum.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews