US Attorney General Questions Habeas Corpus

spiedrazer writes "In yet another attempt to create legitimacy for the Bush Administration's many questionable legal practices, US attorney General Alberto Gonzales actually had the audacity to argue before a Congressional committee that the US Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights on US citizens. In his view it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rights are granted. The Attorney General was being questioned by Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18. THe MSM are not covering this story but Colbert is (click on the fourth video down, 'Exact Words')." From the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel commentary: "While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear (such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble peacefully) also don't exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative. It boggles the mind the lengths this administration will go to to systematically erode the rights and privileges we have all counted on and held up as the granite pillars of our society since our nation was founded."

Comments

For those who are Google SHILLS, SUCH AS

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who are Google SHILLS, SUCH AS *not* yours truly, you are right up there with Bush and his team of crackpot commies!

Tyrants?

[intnsred]

Given Bush's wanton violations of the law (e.g. 800+ "signing statements", the tapping of our phones, etc.), the Supreme Court's ruling that Bush violated the Geneva Conventions (making him a de facto war criminal), and the many thoroughly warped claims and positions taken by Ashcroft and Gonzalez, when are we going to face the fact that these people are merely wannabe tyrants and are coming closer and closer to shedding their "wannabe" status?

And when are we going to decide that their actions are "high crimes" and act to remove these tyrants from office?

Has the rule of law ceased to exist in the U.S.?

[Futurepower(R)]

I agree. If there is no trial for treason, then the rule of law has ceased to exist in the United States.

The Bush administration is the most corrupt administration the U.S. has ever had. Here is my summary of the corruption: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy.

I hope you will write your own summary and send it to your elected representatives.

--
U.S. government violence in Iraq caused more violence, not peaceful democracy.

Re:Rights? Wrong.

[cold fjord]

The United States is following its Constitution. The problem is that you, and most people on Slashdot, are apparently ignorant of the existence of the Law of War and wrongly assume that criminal law and the guarantees in the Constitution that address it cover every situation. That is false. When you combine that false belief with a bit of passion, you end up with inflamed opinion and nonsense like this:

I think we should follow Gonzalez instruction, suspend his habeus corpus rights and just toss him in a hole for all eternity where he can starve to death. Maybe after a few months, or decades he will have a change of heart regarding the importance of this right.

The US is at war with Al Qaeda. (Yes, at war. See below*.) There isn't much of anything going on here that President Roosevelt didn't do in WW2, and in many ways there is less. We seem to have survived that war.

If you aren't part of, or otherwise helping Al Qaeda, you aren't very likely to run afoul of the Law of War issue.

*FISA vs. the Constitution

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

Why is this on Slashdot at all?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Why is this on Slashdot at all, except for someone's left political ranting, and a Slashdot admin willing to promote it?

Re:Rights? Wrong.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Until you can name a racial, national, or religious minority that is being systematically exterminated (in cold blood, preferably) by "BushCo" -- or any hints of same -- kindly cease from dragging up "American decline into Fascism" all the time. (This request also applies to your fan(s) among moderators.)

How about an economic class minority? Well, ok, so really they're the majority (people making between $36,000/year and $64,000/year) but they won't be for long if we continue ill-advised free-trade treaties.

Oh yeah, and then there are Sunni Iraqis- our support of a terrorist Shi'a government in Iraq could well result in their extermination, if it wasn't for Syria.