OK, this makes me REALLY mad - AG Gonzales denies habeas corpus is Constitutional!

[Manedwolf]

In the days of Adams, Madison et al, they called this an "Outrage", and this is the sort of thing that began the serious conversations of How To End This in backrooms of taverns, in newspaper offices, and over dinner tables.

Think we, as a people, still have the ability to do it? Or have the "Loyalists" won?

 

[gc70]

The AG is correct that the Constitution does not contain an affirmative statement that "grants" the right to habeas corpus.

I can't make the leap to some of the conclusions that have been posted without a full transcript of the hearing to know what prompted the quoted exchange. Specter and Gonzales were obviously verbally sparring over some issues and all we see are a few sentences taken out of context.

Excuse the analogy, but you can spin nearly anything in any direction if you are inclined to do so:

Reporter: It sure is hot today, isn't it Mr. President?
President: No, it isn't really too hot.
Aha! There's proof of the administration's denial of global warming. What nefarious end is this leading to?​

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Like I said many times before.........When you vote for the lesser of two evils, no matter who wins, it's evil.

It's not him I am ashamed of. It's you.

 

[michiganfan]

That Leno joke is a corker

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, Gonzales is making this statement AFTER the last November 7 elections where the opposing party ran with at least one of its issues being the reduction of civil liberties. They won big and currently control both the House and Senate.

There are many within the Republican party who aren't comfortable with the levels of civil liberties (as evidenced by Specter).

Gonzales is not a stupid man and he knows the basics of Constitutional Law and politics quite well. So why did he go up in front of a committee and push an interpretation that could best be described as tenuous when he knew that the chance Congress would support that claim is zero?

There is a lot more going on here than just this exchange and the statement by Gonzales. Instead of getting wound up about the statement, we should ask what overall strategy is being pursued that would require Gonzales to make such a futile effort?

 

[k_dawg]

Why make the effort? Because it is the simple truth. It is not the US constitution which grants the right of habeas corpus. No matter how many ignorant Senators think otherwise.

 

[nobody_special]

Like I said many times before.........When you vote for the lesser of two evils, no matter who wins, it's evil.

Sometimes, all the choices are evil. You have no choice but to vote for a "lesser evil" or not participate at all, and take whatever is imposed upon you by others.

It's not him I am ashamed of. It's you.

I can live with that.

 

[gyp_c2]

hmmm...

...

shall not be infringed

...

...he's being veryspecific...of course, that's not exactly a home crowd he's speaking with at that point...

...he is correct though...I don't think most folks even read the damn thing...
Sure caught his inquisitor by surprise, didn't he...

 

[foob]

Oh come on guys, Bush is a Republican, and he goes to church, and I think he quit drinking, and he's married to a woman and has children. He knows what's best for us, don't forget, he's one of us true blooded americans. I respect his cowboy image and his "stay the course" attitude. He takes no **** from nobody. As Texans say it best, "Don't mess with Texas", we need to make damn sure other countries know this, "Nobody messes with the USA", and of course, "You are either with us, or against us".

If we are going to catch those terrorists we need to voluntarily surrender our rights, come on, that's the only way we can win this war. Don't worry when the war is over those rights will be returned, stop trying to scare people already. With the PATRIOT Act and expanded powers the government has had since 9/11, they have foiled numerous terrorist plots, they have saved countless of american lives. Of course they aren't going to be specific about the individual incidents, this will give the terrorists an idea of how it works, and give them ways to circumvent our protections.

They are the ones with the intelligence and the evidence, they know who are guilty already, why waste time with a trial. With a trial, state secrets and matters of national security will be revealed, and those terrorists will use it against us. How can we criticize them when we don't have all the facts. He's got a lot of people giving him the best advise, and he's doing his best for us. What have you done for your country lately? You know it's unpatriotic during a time of war to criticize the president. We need to support him on all his decisions.

Those terrorists at Guantanamo have killed americans. If we don't lock them up indefinitely, they'll attack us again. Will you take responsibility when we release them and they attack us again? These men are evil, no doubt about it. If they are innocent, why would we lock them up, that makes no sense at all. We placed them in Guantanamo because if we locked them up on the mainland, God knows what will happen when they somehow escape and rain havoc down on us.

What about justice for the victims, rememeber 9/11? 3000 americans died that day because of evil muslims and their hatred for freedom. If we didn't attack Iraq and Afghanistan, they would have attacked us on american soil again. Don't listen to those terrorist loving liberals and Democrats, the main reason we attacked Iraq was to remove an evil genocidal dictator and bring him to justice. Do you know how many innocent Iraqis we saved by doing that? We were welcomed as liberators, didn't you watch the news? We also know he was resuming production of weapons of mass destruction, it's just that Iraq is really big, and it's easy to hide them, that's why we coudn't find any. Also note that we are spreading democracy in the Middle East, in time, the region will be one big happy family, with Jews and Muslims holding hands and singing.

I don't understand why you guys are so shocked, we are being attacked on all sides here. Illegal aliens are invading our country, they are taking our jobs, some are raping our wives, and predating our children. Don't forget the war on our national language - English. If we don't do anything soon, this whole country will be speaking Spanish. Gays are also waging a war on marriage and traditional values. And Christianity, they are destroying our religion here. This nation is a Christian nation founded by Christians, we can't let them revise history. We need to fight back, and the first thing we can do is support our president and the government. And all these evils are supported and funded by hollywood and those rich liberals. We need laws to ban the ACLU.

Vote Republican, vote for freedom and liberty for all.

 

[telomerase]

They are the ones with the intelligence and the evidence, they know who are guilty already, why waste time with a trial. How can we criticize them when we don't have all the facts.

Absolutely! And since we can never get all the facts when dealing with a group of systematic liars, any time anyone lies to us the only logical response is to do whatever they say without question.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Before We Go On...

I gotta tell you this before I tell you what follows: A right can be considered a privilege, but a privilege cannot be considered a right. "Privilege" is a synonym for "right", but "right" is not a synonym for "privilege". Therefore, anything spoken of as a privilege in the Constitution is not necessarily a right.

From the article:

“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).

The mention of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution is recognition enough that it exists. And, for whom could it possibly exist other than for the people? It's not like you can arrest and detain a state!

But, here is another pertinent fact. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is not a right. It is not even enumerated as a right in the Constitution. It is enumerated as a PRIVILEGE! If it were a right, it couldn't even be suspended in a time of rebellion or invasion! So, Gonzales is right in the respect that it is not a right, but it cannot be denied anyone, regardless of whether the Constitution "grants" it or whether the Constitution says it applies to everyone or not! The power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been DENIED, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Even then, it would be up to Congress to suspend it, not the Executive branch nor Judicial branch of the Union. No such power has been granted to the Executive or Judicial branches of the Union. Any power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus is in the purview of Congress as a limited specific exception to the denial of the power, included with the other powers denied to Congress in Article I, Section 9.

That said, Gonzales fell about another 40 points on my Trust-O-Meter, and Bush lost about as much on my Respect-O-Meter for appointing him. Gonzales's statement is inaccurate, incomplete, deceptive, and revealing. There is something up his(and probably Bush's) sleeve.

It seems to me - call it my masculine "don't screw with me" intuition - there have been a spate of "diversions" lately. It seems that all in Washington DC are in bed with some scheme and it's time to slip the covers off.

Woody

"It is up to We the People to decide if and when we shall revolt. It is not up to those in government to prevent it. It is up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary." B.E.Wood

 

[gyp_c2]

yup...

It seems to me - call it my masculine "don't screw with me" intuition - there have been a spate of "diversions" lately. It seems that all in Washington DC are in bed with some scheme and it's time to slip the covers off.

Woody

...what he said...

 

[benEzra]

Why make the effort? Because it is the simple truth. It is not the US constitution which grants the right of habeas corpus. No matter how many ignorant Senators think otherwise.

Gonzales isn't defending the idea that the Constitution protects preexisting rights, like you and I believe. He is defending the idea that the executive branch can suspend habeus corpus for people the executive branch declares "enemy combatants."

What he's saying is, that there's a loophole in the Constitution that allows the EB to suspend habeus corpus for any individual it wants, because the Constitution doesn't grant the right, and doesn't explicitly say it applies to every single individual.

And Gonzales practices what he preaches--exhibit A is the Jose Padilla case, in which an American citizen was imprisoned for years without trial simply by being designated an enemy combatant, and Gonzales has been in the forefront of that debate.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

This is trial by jury. Our process for deciding who needs to go to prison, and who needs to be free. The government can't get convictions on all these people, so it wishes to squeeze the ones there is no evidence on in hopes that they give up the info. What if tons of them did nothing wrong? What if tons of them have no connection to terrorism? Doesn't matter. We're fighting terr-ism!

Look, when the government gets the power, and the will to torture people, it becomes no better than the terrorists we are fighting.

Those of you who are saying different, and acting like Gonzalez isn't a closet fascist have your heads in the sand.

 

[tellner]

Mordechai, you're wrong. You're not just wrong, you're completely 100% dead wrong.

Our Attorney General is not a closet fascist. There's absolutely nothing "closet" about it

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I am sick. Really sick. Because I am deeply concerned we won't be able to make this go away.

Oh, and tellner, sorry. Yeah, the fascism is out there. Next time I see Gonzalez in the press, I'll think of the "Seig Heil."

 

[thexrayboy]

Gonzalez is taking the position that since the Constitution does not specifically grant us the right of habeas corpus that the government can decide when it does or does not apply. Kind of convenient. Wrong of course but convenient. Habeas Corpus is like the right to self defense. The constitution does not grant to us in the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms. That right exists as a fundamental part of being human. The Second Amendment simply states that the government is prohibited from "infringing" that right. Neither does the Constitution specifically grant us
the right to habeas corpus. That right is also a fundamental human right. The constitution merely limits the governments ability to suspend habeas corpus to two specific instances. To date no rebellion exists in our country, and barring some real legal magic we have had no invasion unless some want to call the abundance of illegal immigrants an invasion. Since neither of the two
allowed reasons to suspend habeas corpus exist any suspension of it is a violation of the constitution.

I know, that silly old piece of parchement keeps getting in the way of what government wants to do. So they keep ignoring it. Conveniently they have a precedent allowing them to ignore the right of habeas corpus. That precedent is the decades long assault on the Second Amendment. It would appear that our system of government has been perverted so thoroughly as to perhaps be beyond repair.

I'm starting to think it's time for the citizenry to increase our stocks of tar, feathers and rails.

 

[tellner]

We are being <bad word> without even the common courtesy of <really bad word>

 

[cbsbyte]

And people are wondering why this country is going to ****?

 

[Stretchman]

Missing the point people. It's never been about the Government giving people rights. It's always been about the Government not being able to take away the inalienable rights of people. The inference there isn't that the Gov gives them, but that God, or the make up of people themselves makes these rights a part of who we are. For the Government to infringe on that would be to put themselves in a position of dictating that which the founding fathers believed that no man had a right to dictate.

That being said, the Government only extends those constitutional rights to people as far as the Government is concerned. It never guaranteed rights. It guaranteed that the Gov couldn't and wouldn't take them away. But it also specifically stated that any rights not particularly spelled out in the constitution were to fall under state control. But basically, any rights spelled out in the constitution were believed to have existed innately, and therefore, would be impossible to take away from people any way. The only thing the Government could ever hope to do was suppress them, which is exactly what the framers of the constitution set out to avoid.

So, if Habeus Corpus is specified, it is because the framers believed that the right did in fact, exist, and was inalienable. Exceptions of course do apply.

Stretch
Quit cigs 2W 3D 30m ago. So far saved $102.12, 680 cigs not smoked and counting ...

 

[tellner]

Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?

 

[nobody_special]

There is a lot more going on here than just this exchange and the statement by Gonzales. Instead of getting wound up about the statement, we should ask what overall strategy is being pursued that would require Gonzales to make such a futile effort?

He doesn't care. Bush can't be re-elected (and he's lost all political credibility anyway at this point). I think he's just saying to Congress; a warning shot fired across the bow, if you will. The president has already demonstrated that he doesn't believe Congress has any authority over his power... consider his "signing statements" (and that's just the tip of the iceberg).

Maybe he's warming up to declare Congress "enemy combatants" and stage a coup...

 

[Finch]

Where Gonzales is right, (not that it pleases me, mind you) is that the scope of to whom it applies is not specified.

Ummm actually, I think the preamble to the constitution makes it very clear who is covered under the rights and privileges outlined in said constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And you know, considering that this phrase "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" is found in that oh so beautiful Constitution, I think it applies to we the people of the United States.

Finch - 1 | A.G. GoneZany - 0

 

[Finch]

HeHe, itchy trigger finger.

 

[hoji]

What surprises me is that ANYONE is surprised by this.