Slashdot Mirror
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."
I don't have anything else to say.
Here's a great article that explains some of the hypocrisy concerning Senator Arlen Spector and habeas corpus.
See his comments for yourself. This first video shows the conversation between Sen. Spector and Mr. Gonzales leading up to the comment, this video shows the reaction from Sen. Spector and Sen. Leahy.
Truly scary stuff. This administration isn't even sticking to conservative values. They've gone off the neo-con deep end.
You know perjury isn't treason. As a crime treason is very specifically defined. People toss "traitor", "treason", "treasonous", etc. around without even the slightest hint that an act of treason has actually been committed. They should rip the tongues out of anyone who makes baseless accusations.
You're right, and even more so, the constitution of the United States does not regulate the PEOPLE of the United States, it regulates the GOVERNMENT of the United States. And it doesn't regulate it just by saying what it cannot do, it explicitly says what it IS empowered to do. In other words, the (Federal) government can only make laws (restricting the people) if the constitution grants it the power to do so and doesn't forbid it. The constitution grants no rights to the people -- the people are assumed to have all those rights. The constitution merely limits what kinds of laws the government can enact.
For example, there is no federal law setting the minimum drinking age. So, why is there a minimum drinking age in the United States? Because the federal government refuses to give highway money to any state that doesn't set a minimum drinking age of 21. Today, all the states have capitulated, but that does not make it a federal law, because the federal government is not granted that power.
Of course, that doesn't stop legislators from passing all kinds of unconstitutional laws, or even the courts from upholding them (somehow, interstate commerce can be used to justify anything in some judge's minds). But in the end, as you said, the people possess their rights inherently. They are not granted by the government.
Some might argue that the Habeas Corpus is not really a right -- the constitution even calls it a privilege. It is more like a procedure to protect against unlawful imprisonment. Even so, the AG is on thin ice (i.e., full of sh*t), since the constitution says that it shall not be suspended. If the procedure is not allowed, then it is, by definition, suspended.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
I remember watching that exchange and all Clinton did was express himself poorly. The prosecutor's question did not agree in tense. He started out in the past tense but conjugated the verb to be in the present tense. In order to answer accurately Clinton needed to know whether he meant "is" or "was" (actually "are" or "were". It was an important distinction. Unfortunately for Clinton, he didn't ask for that clarification very well. Also he was snotty about it. I'm no big Clinton fan, but the is-is meme is very misleading.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
"Clinton was never impeached"
Wrong. Impeachment occurs when the US House of Representatives votes to bring about articles of impeachment. Following that, an impeachment trial occurs in the Senate, where a majority vote can cause removal from office.
Clinton was impeached by House Resolution 581 on October 8, 1999, by a party-line vote of 258 to 163. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate by a vote of 55-45.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Re the theory of evolution, "theory" in that context is a term with a specific scientific meaning, in particular, "capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation". Creationism does not rise to the level of a theory in that sense, and nor does "intelligent design".
It's just unfortunate that the colloquial use of the term "theory" has connotations that make it sound more tenuous than it actually is, and that people who want to promote a certain ancient fantasy exploit that pun to good effect.
I think ol' Alberto is ignoring amendment 6:
Seems pretty clear to me.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
NAZI stands for National Socalist. The National Socialists were a bit more complicated than just 'Jew Killers.'
Read some history. And make sure you read from a wide variety of sources. There's an awful lot of slanted history about WWII, mainly because 'the victors wrote the history' and there were some pretty awful 'Allies' involved, i.e. Stalin.
This is a minimizing and factually incorrect description of what the law accomplishes.
If you actually read the law, you'll see that anyone -- not just "foreigners" -- can be taken and held indefinitely while the government "makes determination whether the prisoner is an enemy combatant" at any speed it chooses to get after such a task, which means that anyone, anywhere in the USA, can be legally taken without notice, held without representation, counsel, hearing, never mind "speedy", or any other "right" as we like to think of them and as the 6th amendment lays out at least to some degree.
Most US citizens have no idea just how bad this law is. I'm delighted to see it being discussed. And yes, you're absolutely right, everyone is threatened. Just don't assume this law doesn't threaten us, the citizens of the United States, equally. It does.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
To be fair though, The writ of habeas copus takes place before that portion happens. (or to a challenge form that proceeding) It is splitting the constitution hair when looking at it in that mannor. The constitution was signed 4 years before the bill of rights. So, I think they would have removed the ability of suspending habeas corpus or make a direct claim to altering it if they never intended it to be able to happen. If they specificly intended the suspension ability to go away, they could have easily added something like habeas copus cannot be suspended or revoked and; to the sixth amendment. Something else is that it has been suspended before with no succesful chalenges based on the sixth amendment.
However, the cheif justice of the supreme court who was working on U.S. Circuit Court (in between supreme court mettings) who was also a political oponant of lincon overrulled it citing rule of law and the fact that it never has been done before. Lincon ignored the rulling and congress eventualy passed it into law around the end of the civil war. It also has been envoked a couple of other times without chalenge. Mostley in isolated areas like a single state or parts of a state. One of the mst notable and succesfull suspension of habeas corpus was when president grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the KKK.
So even though it seems pretty clear to you, history throws some mud on it. Unfortunatly, the mud and constitution seems to allow it to be suspended. It definatly had good uses against the KKK and allowing some blacks americans the ability to vote!
I don't know, Amendments IX and X in the bill of rights explicitly reserve rights to the people:
Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain
rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
Hard to see how Gonzalez wrigles around those and the writ.
got sources to back that up? because the populus of venezuela all support him as evident from the failed CIA-engineered coup. it's only the small rich minority who lost power due to the new constitution (established through a mass referendum) and the media elite who oppose him.
....you are not guaranteed the right to habeus corpus......
Since when has *any* government or founding document ever GIVEN a right to anyone? All governments without a single exception have always TAKEN rights away from people. The founding fathers knew this. There are certain INALIENABLE rights all people have, given to them by the only one who is able to give rights, namely our CREATOR. The ultimate right a government can take away from a person, such as the unborn or a so called criminal, is the right to live. Once life is taken, no human can bring it back. In the constitution, the founding father made a good attempt to prevent the US government from taking these God given rights away from the people. Too bad, that the courts have slowly destroyed the constitution over the intervening years.
All theory is gray
Specifically: Oaths of office are usually a statement of loyalty to a constitution or other legal text, as well as an oath to the state or religion the office holder will be serving. It is often considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office. See also perjury: the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.
Eye kneed eh Grammer chicken.
The Constitution was written in a very precise way. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Everything is well defined. All one has to do to interpret it in the proper manner is use the Common Law from the time that it was written.
There are three possible meanings to everything in a legal document: 1) It is defined within the document, 2) it is defined within other legal documents to which the parent document refers or draws from, 3) it is defined within the context of the common language of the time that the document was written.
In the case of the Constitution, there were numerous discussions at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights (for example). These discussions between the writers and States defined the final meaning of every clause. In addition, words like "arms", "people", "militia" were defined within the Common Law of the time the Constitution was written and their meanings are clear.
Those that attempt to say that the meanings of certain words and phrases in the Constitution have changed over the years have a single agenda: to bend it to their way of thinking, whatever that may be (and it's usually not in the public good).
The Constitution does not need to be re-written and in fact can not under the law without going through much legal wrangling throughout the States. It is in plain English and the meaning of some terms that we may not use today can easily be found within many other documents from the same time period. As for the interpretation, the Supreme Court has always had that power. The States have always had the power to question the Supreme Court, but they have lost their will to do so.
PGA
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?