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."
"Nothing to see here, please move along."
First time I've ever seen that. Couldn't be more descriptive of what the administration would like everyone to do... for everything.
And, btw, this load of crap from the same party who ridiculed "That depends what 'is' is."
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
I don't have anything else to say.
The Second Amendment is starting to look better and better all the time.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This story is about a week old, but still very disturbing. Do these people not respect our freedoms at all? Is our next war going to be "The War on Politicians?"
Yes, hopefully.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Or more appropriately, executed for treason?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
seriously, how can you tolerate a US Attorney General who questions such a fundamental right?
This whole "how much damage can he possibly cause in 4 years?" attitude is appalling.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I've been thinking for years, that this country is turning into a police state. When 9/11 happened, many people, including myself, saw a clear case of Reichstag burning. Whenener I posted this opinion on this here forum, I was modded as a troll.
This country is slowly turning into Nazi America. History repeats itself... Still think I'm trolling?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Is a favorite pastime of both parties. The feds have been ignoring the constitution since at least FDR's new deal, and some would say the civil war.
If you shout and cheer for the limitless power given by g readings of the interstate commerce clause and the 'general welfare' clause (quip), you're part of the problem. If you think that the constitution wasn't designed to cuff the federal government into a very limited role it's now outgrown, you're part of the problem.
If you have no clue what the 9th and 10th amendments are, and you think the 2nd amendment is outdated or a 'states right' (*snicker), YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
The constitution isn't a salad bar. You don't get to pick and choose. You either respect it, or you don't. If you don't you'll get some programs you like (SS, medicare, HUD, etc) and you'll get some you hate, losing your freedoms all the way.
The government pisses all over the constitution every day because we let it and we elect people who make and deliver on promises that are not within the assigned powers of the federal government.
The constitution isn't a living document. It means what it says, with the meaning that the orginal writers intended. If it's a living document then it can mean anything, and so it basically means nothing. The original intent of the founding fathers is not an arcane secret difficult to divine- they were quite prolific writers and record keepers- go find what else they wrote and their intent will be clear.
You can blame Gonzalez, you can blame Bush, but you really should blame FDR, blame Lincoln, and most of all blame yourself.
If you really want to get picky on the constitution, then the following goes away:
Every state and local gun ban
The department of education, the Department of the Interior, HUD, Social Security, Medicare, and a whole lot of others I don't remember.
You can argue that some of those functions are proper for the federal government to have and in some cases I might agree with you. The fact remains that all of them exist only because 'interstate commerce' now means anything that can conceivably happen in more than one state, and 'general welfare' now means 'welfare for the individual.' We can change the constitution if we think the feds should have more power. We just don't bother.
You bought and paid for this administration's abuses with a million other trespasses you let slide because they made you feel good.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Do you need it spelled out to you even more plainly than that?
They are the most vile, unamerican, undemocratic power grabbing swine in the nation. More than happy to subvert the constitution for themselves and thier corporate friends. Some of them were even saying how Mossolini wasn't such a bad guy after all. They are more than happy to expend a few trillion dollars and thousands of deaths to prove thier grand geopolitical theorys.
Oh, and I'll be the first to say it: Godwin's Law!
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Because, those who suggest that are imprisoned and executed for treason.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Where's all these constitution loving guns nuts I'm always hearing about? How come no-one puts a bullet in people like this? Is it just the shoot terms in the US that cause such apathy in the redneck population? Or is it just that gun nuts are too poor these days to afford bus fare?
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice 1928 Source:dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)
"Men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the executive be under the law."
Justice Robert H. Jackson Source:Sam Ervin, The Whole Truth
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."
Justice David Davis (1815-1886) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1862-1877 Source: Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866) DAVIS, J., Opinion of the Court http://liberty-tree.ca/qb/David.Davis.Quote.5879 [liberty-tree.ca]
Here's a great article that explains some of the hypocrisy concerning Senator Arlen Spector and habeas corpus.
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.
Of course they're not granted, the government doesn't grant any rights. It can protect or violate them, but not decide that they were not granted to someone.
Wow, his statement is troubling.
Interestingly enough, it was a Republican, Sen Specter, that challenged him on this. As the article comntinues "Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering."
So, if both parties don't want this, let's hope this guy gets canned, quickly.
Have you read my journal today?
We're fucked.
...the Constitution? They claim to do that. And if you strictly do that, you realize that the government only has the powers specifically given to it in the Constitution. All other rights and powers go to the people and/or the states. Thus, unless the government is specifically given the power to suspend habeas corpus (which it *is* in limited circumstances), it cannot infringe upon on that right. That right, as specifically protected in the 9th amendment, is not disparaged merely by not being listed.
Now, if one wants to "liberally" interpret the Constitution (e.g., not use a "strict" interpretation), then you could make the argument that Gonzales is making. Of course, no neocon would do that for political gain, nosiree. Yep, they'd strictly interpret the Constitution in all cases.....
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
We tried to impeach a president for questionable moral and sexual acts in the oval office. Yet we do nothing with this kind of crap going on?
;)
The world is quickly becoming a place I dont want to bring a child into.
Then again, im posting on slashdot. I dout i'll get the chance.
I'm standing over Mr. Gonzales with a stick in one hand and a copy of the Constitution in the other. And I look at the document and say "Nothing in here says not to whack you, Al."
WHACK!
Then I look at the Constitution again. And I say "Nothing in here says not to whack you again, Al."
WHACK!
This repeats until I wake up.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
And why Bush has not fired him for that comment.
Because Bush hired him *because* of such attitudes toward the country and its people. After all, to Bush, the Constitution is "just a god damned piece of paper".
These uncivilized people see public policy and people's rights merely as a speed-bump on their road to greed and power.
-Twi
The Attorney General argues a position that advances the interests of the executive. I by no means support his dumbassed argument, but that's his prerogative. The issue here is what will Congress - that other branch of government we all forget about - do about it? Cut funding to certain programs, refuse to confirm any executive nominees, etc. until the executive renounces its position? Our system breaks down not when one branch takes an outlandish position, but when the other branch fails to call them on it. Presidents and cabinet members will be making dumb decisions for decades to come. What troubles me is that future Congresses will continue the inaction established by the past few Congresses. I'm merely pointing out that our government is failing us in other ways. Please don't misconstrue this as support of the idiotic administration. Hell, the Democrats still won't end the Iraq War because they're afraid a "spin machine" will make them look anti-soldier. Instead they're debating worthless non-binding proclamations - proclamations directed at a president who doesn't care about public or congressional opinion.
While I believe the views expressed by the above poster are extreme (that's not a comment on their correctness, simply a comment on how they compare to the popular mode of thinking), in no way do I think that the "troll" moderation is fair -- it's a valid opinion, even if you don't agree with it. If I had the mod points...
A few years later, a different president tells lies about so-called weapons of mass destruction, fabricates connections between Saddam and terror groups, and uses those lies as a means to justify a war that get tens of thousands of people killed. But y'all cool with that?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You know, who ever declared that Alberto Gonzales has the right to live? Anyone?
Quite the contrary. The penalty for treason is hanging. Don't they swear them in with an oath to protect the Constitution?
Colbert nailed it with his Brady Bunch allusion:
"But you only said I was grounded from driving your car. You didn't say anything else about someone else's car!"
People are really strange. My conservative parents will complain for hours about the mere possibility of the government wasting money on universal health care, but throwing billions of dollars down the drain in Iraq and this kind of nonsense and they will only grudgingly admit "mistakes were made". My theory is that people just like killin' the bad guys so much that they don't see how easy it is for us mistake who the "bad guys" are.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
I know this one is going to get me flamed into oblivion, and may even result in a rather authoritative knock on my door tomorrow morning, but I'll not be labeled as an anonymous coward either, so here goes...
Through everything that's gone on, from the constant erosion of our rights, to the outright lies that got us involved in what will be a never-ending war, to the fact that the entire administration has shown time and time again that they couldn't give two shits about what the American people at large think, to the complete and utter disregard Bush has for separation of powers ("signing statements," anyone) the one thing I keep hearing is "support the troops."
Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops.
My question is, why are the troops supporting this government? If anyone, anyone has the power to put an end to all of this, it is they. Why hasn't the military staged a coup d'état? Why haven't the troops themselves simply said "enough is enough?"
The part that angers me the most is that these are the people who put this administration in office. Twice! They are the very same people who are getting completely shafted by this government. And they are the blue-collar workers of America. They are the ones whose sons and husbands and uncles (and daughters and wives and aunts) are being sent off to die in a country that doesn't give a fuck about us.
Was it so important that their neighbors, both of whom happen to be named Jim, shouldn't be allowed to fuck in the privacy of their own home, let alone consider themselves married (which, by the way, is just a word -- just a word) that they're willing to die for it? That they're willing to lose their social security for it? That they're willing force an absolutely abominable national debt on their children, and their children's children, and so on and so forth?
Was it worth it, to make sure that everyone says "the theory of evolution," but simply refers to the opposing viewpoint as "creationism" (shouldn't it be "the theory of creationism")?
And if not, why the hell haven't our troops done something about it?
Ack!
He said: "Any society that gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserve neither." Just thought that might have something to do with what the writers of the constitition had in mind.
How can you suspend something that doesn't exist then?
This was more or less Hamilton's argument against a Bill of Rights. He predicted arguments such as this, based on interpretation of the specific "grant" of right.
But as he pointed out, under the Constitution rights are not granted by the Constitution. Rights, in a government of, by and for the people are held by them in the first place, not doled out by a government that is merely their social tool.
The Constitution is not a grant of rights to the people, but The People imposing limits on the powers of government to infringe and usurp their innate rights. If the government is not allowed the power to infringe rights, no code is necessary to enforce them, and no code exists to be warped into its Newspeak antithesis.
The government only has the power attributed to it by The People. Power is to the people. The Constitution is a limit on the government's power, not your rights. Have we got that?
But The People have come to think of government as the source of power and the doler of rights. Essentially Monarchial. That's why even the term "Liberal" now means a grant from the government, rather than the freedom of the people, and why even "Liberal" in the modern socialist sense is a legitimately bad word in terms of American political philosophy. It implys you are a ward/serf of the state. Someone to importune for a handout, when in point of fact the power, money and services are yours, by ownership and by right.
That these people are being allowed to pervert the system in the name of "Conservatism" to install an Orwellian fascist state is a crime against The People. Literally. The People ought to send them to jail. They belong there.
I fear, however, that instead I, and those like me, shall be sent to exile at best; and the wall at worst.
Been nice knowing you; have a happy; and remember, you do not watch the TV Grandpa, the TV watches you. When you least expect it, you're elected, it's your lucky day. Smile! You're on candid camera. We come in peace. Shoot to kill.
KFG
"Nazi" is a particular group with particular views. Bush doesn't hate Jews. He is not a Nazi.
Bush hates the rule of law. He hates having to share power with the other two branches of government.
Bush is a proto-Fascist. He does not care about the Rights of the People if they get in his way of performing his "job" the way he sees fit. To him, the Presidency is above the Law. Fascism is seductive. It promises "safety" and "order". And all it asks is that some people you probably didn't like anyway lose their Rights.
In a Democracy, the President is constrained by the Law. He must choose the courses which achieve the objects WITHOUT violating the Rights of the People. Any of the People. Any of their Rights.
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government is more important than the Rights of the People.
Because Americans are full of ignorant people who don't really care. The majority of Americans really just don't care and it is sad. America just be called The new Rome. Supply the people with entertainment and people could care less about what is happening at the top.
Isn't _EVERY_ _SINGE_ member of the armed services individually sworn to "protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"? Or is it just the president?
Shouldn't _someone_ be arresting these people by now...? Who does the arresting when the person who is _supposed_ to be doing the arresting is the one that should be arrested?
Yea, I know, slippery slope and all that, but damn, this is sounding a _lot_ like treason (by "pun" or by "confabulation" or some such perversion of the language and with some deliberate mendacity apparent, since nobody can be _THAT_ stupid can they?) executed by or on the behalf of our "elected" leaders.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
The Constitution grants no rights. Our rights are granted by our Creator, or, if you prefer, by the fact of our humanity.
That isn't wild theorizing. It is solid constitutional law.
For instance, the Constitution provides no right of procreation. Most of us would concede it a right of people. So did the Court when the question arose.
The Consitution does prohibit government from infringing on some of our rights, and it gives Congress some powers to protect others, but it grants no rights by itself.
Habeas corpus additionally is not a "right". It is a procedure to enforce a fundamental right --not to be unjustly imprisoned.
As a procedure it is not self effectuating,. It requires statutory implementation. Over the years Congress has both limited and expanded the procedures governing granting a writ of habeas corpus. So have the courts.
Gonzales could have phrased his answer in a form more pleasing to the public. But he is not just "technically right". He is fundamentally right, and the principle underlying his answer is a greater defense of our liberty than a position that the Constitution is the fount of our rights.
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.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
The guns are for protection and to take shots at idiot know-it-alls that like to talk down to us based on where we may live and the fact that we may want to have a firearm in our possesion at all times......
Son, your not gonna win any supporters with your attitude. Also even us "backwater hick libertarians" can read and have access to 'Puters and the Net.
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
Fairly sure that noone's going to knock on your door tomorrow. 'cept maybe some Jehovah's witnesses. /. people have gotten sent off to Gitmo for talking about hypothetical coups.
:P
Very few
Anyway, IANAA(I Am Not An American) but my best guess is that the people who'd organize such a rebellion(generals and such) really aren't getting shafted as badly as you feel you are. They apparently don't feel the noose tightening around their necks, and it probably isn't. Plus even a military coup requires some support from the General Public to be successful. The US citizenry has a boatload of guns, and a fair number of those gun owners really like Bush. It might be sad but based off of my interactions with some of them, and watching your TV it's true.
If They kill off/imprison/whatever Dubya and all the rest of the morons in Washington they're going to worry alot of people that they're losing freedoms. Ignorant though they may generally be, people would probably notice if the government changed hands so drastically down there. They're not noticing these sorts of statements by Gonzales effecting any meaningful changes in the way they live their lives. Now if Gonzales successfully removed the right to eat McDonalds and watch "wrassling" then you might be more likely to see a few hundred thousand nutjobs with a rifle go out for some blood. That sort of shit would be too much
I'll pause for a moment and admit that yes, I'm an evangelical Christian, so here is how I view the statement:
In short, I don't agree with Gonzales' assessment because, from what I understand the constitution is a legal and historical document that is predicated upon the earlier work of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration contains the famous central truth statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This central truth statement does a number of things but here are a few bullet points:
1. Individual people and their governments are both under the authority of the Creator.
2. This creator has endowed people with "certain unalienable Rights", the use of the word certain is curious because it bolsters the central truth statement (i.e. "I'm certain that this is true") and it limits the number of rights (i.e. "I get paid on a certain day"). The latter is necessary so that we have rule of law, and not rule of might, or money, or power, or intelligence, or whatever is popular at the time.
3. Being unalienable, it is impossible for these rights to be transferred to another either willingly or unwillingly.
4. The undertone to the sentence is confidently foreboding that "if you attempt to take away these rights you are not messing with just men, but with God".
I'm curious what everyone else's take is on these events.
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Nobody seemed to care about Americans who have a middle eastern background, since those dark boys are the "bad guys" these days. Nope, not the Jews, or blacks, or gays... this time it's those dirty muslims! Nobody raises much of a fuss when they're harassed by the government and police, suspected as terrorists because in this post-9/11 world you gotta... I mean they wear turbans. Or something.
Then people start to get a bit nervous about how the government is wiretapping everything. Or how ISPs are served warrants (secret warrants) for handing over private data, which can not be publicly disclosed. But hey they're probably just after those scary brown islamic people right, I am safe ... right? I'm a white christian, I'm probably safe.
Oops what's this, the military/government is saying detained prisoners can not question the court process or raise objections. No habeas corpus for them? Well that's ok, we should detain them forever without trial! In this post 9/11 world you gotta...
But wait a second. The US Attorney General tells the nation that US citizens do not have the right to question the legal process or authority of courts. That's citizens, as in YOU, not the brown muslim in gitmo. YOU don't have such a right. Now this doesn't sound cool... it's one of the foundations of western law. Could have sworn that US citizens were guaranteed that right. It seemed obvious.
We should have started worrying when those brown boys began losing their rights. Now they are coming after YOU. Wow just like in the historical warning.
well, the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela. but that's because their military has a long tradition of being closely tied with the progressive movement there. and so far Venezuela has been an anomaly.
The sad thing is I don't think Hillary or Obama will change the rules.
Good point, When is the last time a politician voted themselves less power?
We are all just people.
Several years ago I wrote a state agency in Ohio telling them that they did not have the authority to collect certain data that they were collecting. (We're calling it data type X.) Ohio law specifically says that any state agency must be granted the ability by the state legislature in order to collect data.)
What Ohio law does have, for this particular example, was a law like "Data type X shall not be a public record." The agency I was dealing with responded that the legislature must have indirectly given the agency the ability to collect data type X because they went out of their way to recognize it in another part of the code.
Both this and Gonzale's testimony are creative ways of redefining law.
"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.
paper(constitution)
scissors(government)
rock(people-you,me,all)
too simple
What?
...nobody, except for libertarians, seems to care about the Tenth Amendment anymore. Whenever you bring up the Tenth Amendment, politicians would then find a clause in the Constitution, such as the "general welfare" clause or the commerce clause, and then use an extremely broad meaning of those clauses to justify their laws that clearly violate the original and correct meaning of the Constitution. If they can't do that, they then withhold funding to the states unless they comply (read the 55mph speed limit and 21-year old drinking age; they were passed neither because the states universally decided on them nor because it was constitutional, but because the federal government told them "either you pass these laws, or we're not giving you your money. Capice?").
I love the Tenth Amendment, but there are so many violations of the Tenth Amendment in modern America that it feels meaningless. Which is sad, because the Tenth Amendment was there to ensure that the federal government did not get too powerful and trample over the rights of the states and of individuals. But, as I said in a previous post on this same thread, it's not what's written in the Constitution, but who interprets the Constitution. And as long as we have Supreme Court justices who interpret the Constitution broadly instead of strictly to how the Founders intended, the Tenth Amendment will continue to be spat at, and government will be allowed to grow bigger and bigger until we have no freedoms and no economy.
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.
"Seriously, politics should never be discussed on Slashdot as anyone who does not cling to a hard-left viewpoint on EVERY issue is labeled a troll automatically."
If the Ninth Amendment is "hard-left," call me a freakin' Bolshevik.
When Alberto attempts to do an end-run around the Constitution, he becomes the enemy, like a fifth column, and is certainly "giving them Aid and Comfort"
If anything, Gonzales has erred on the side of saying that the Constitution calls it a 'right', which it plainly does not.
Habeas Corpus is one of the enshrined rights that the government was specifically prohibited infringing upon. Whether it's a "right" granted by God or a "priviledge" granted by the law is irrelevant -- Constitutionally speaking, it's something the feds can not suspend without extreme cause.
On a broader sense, if we have to abridge basic rights to wage this war, then our foes are right to oppose us. We cannot do justice to those who were murdered on 9/11/01 if we sink to our worst level.
"A privilege is granted or bestowed upon someone by benevolent authority, and may therefore be revoked by that same authority."
Doesn't apply to the privilege of habeas corpus, as the relevant constitutional text makes apparent. The conditions for its suspension are defined as rebellion or invasion. Neither situation is presently relevant. Hell, the Constitution doesn't even specify a "right" to a free speech. It just says that the freedom of speech will not be abridged.
Of course, most people would sensibly interpret anything the government is explicitly prevented from curtailing as a right. Unless they were inclined to Clintonesque word games in defense of the current administration's Constitutional abuses.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
I am neither a lawyer or a US resident or citizen. However, I am able to use my brain and know a little about the history of jurisprudence. I'm willing to concede that the Writ may not be a natural right, as such (there are other kinds of rights, but for the sake of argument, I'll concede your point), but it is a necessary instrument that ensures that the natural rights of justice and equality before the law are not infringed upon. The Attorney General is correct insofar as the US constitution does not grant the right of habeus corpus.
However, what he fails to acknowledge is that the Writ of habeus corpus is a part of the common law, and so exists, as part of the law of the land in the US (as it does in other countries that inherited British common law). Legislators and the executive branch of government may not overturn that common law, except in the two situations mentioned in the Constitution. For the A-G to imply, as he seems to be doing, that habeus corpus can be ignored by the Executive is to ignore the fact that the Writ of Habeus corpus is legally binding, and the Constitution ensures that this will always be the case through prohibiting legislation to change the common law. The A-G is being disingenuous, pedantic, and a bit of a dick.
But he comes to the exact opposite conclusion one should come to. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it merely protects them. The original writers of the Constitution didn't want a Bill of rights for the very reason that people would get to thinking that the Constitution grants rights.
Search: "The constitution doesn't grant rights
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.
Well, yeah. But that's how the Rebel army defeated the British on U.S. soil in the 18th century. We didn't really defeat the British in the sense that they surrendered themselves to the Americans. They just got tired of fighting and so they left.
In the end, it's quibbling over words.
A honeybee can't defeat a man. But then why is it that when a bee buzzes around a man's head that the man runs away? Doesn't make any sense. Nonetheless, a bee can "defeat" a man by making him run away.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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!
To be brief, I don't consider the fact that something illegal was done in the past, to be a precedent that says that said act is now legal. In other words, I don't see that there has been any mud at all. The ability of the congress to suspend habeas corpus in time of war is written in. That's fine, as far as it goes, however we are not at war, and that's not what this law does. Aside from that, the constitution can be changed by several methods; none of those have been pursued. Therefore, VI stands as a restatement, with no changes.
Either the government's authority comes legitimately from the constitution, or it comes from somewhere else, illegitimately, because there is no other legitimate path. In this case, it is (as per usual, I might add) the threat of overwhelming force.
And good grief man, get a spelling checker, failing other solutions. That was downright painful to read through.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The problem for US citizens is that habeas corpus has been suspended for them by recent unconstitutional legislation, and in such a way that no challenge is possible because no one knows where they are being kept, why they were taken, or who they were taken by. Might have been a kidnapping by a ragtag group of manic Islamists as much as a taking by some nebulous "federal authority." And of course the prisoner is of no help; he has no representation, no ability to contact anyone, no prospect of a trial, or even of a speedy determination if he or she is actually an enemy combatant.
Habeas corpus is gone, and with it, every part of the 6th amendment. For US citizens, much less for those who are not. And for those who say "not when the supreme court gets after it", unfortunately, that won't stop the government from its takings and subsequent malfeasance in the meantime, will it?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Here's some logic maybe even Gonzales can understand.
"Mr Gonzales, how many fingers do you have on your right hand?"
Gonzales:"5"
"Now, the constition says the Government may not chop off your fingers, correct?"
Gonzales:"Correct"
"But the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, did it?"
Gonzales:"No"
"So Mr. Gonzales, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that since the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, and the Constitution says the Government can't take them away, that you probably had them to begin with?"
Gonzales:"..."
The depth of irony here is almost beyond pale. The AG of the United States arguing that the Constitution doesn't explicitely grant a right, which is exactly why the authors of the Constitution framed it the way they did to prevent exactly such arguments. The Constitution *grants no rights*, because you inherently have *all* rights. Same as you were born with fingers and toes, you were born with all rights.
These rights are not just if your an American, they are *inalienable* human rights as understood by the founding fathers.
Truly, this administration doesn't understand what "becoming the enemy" means.
So how can one claim to be fighting for freedom and "The American Way", while at the same time taking away that very freedom and desecrating all those men that gave up their lives war after war for freedom and keep from giving a maniacal laugh at the same time?
This administration has to be either the most dishonest or mentally challenged administration in history! George W. Bush is responsible for his own actions. Do not assert that the actions of his grandfather are his responsibility aswell. These are two different people -- you can easily disapprove of either man -- but don't merge them into one person for you to drive your rage at.
---FourChannel---
Depending on the source, the Iraqi war has resulted in between 30,000 and 100,000 deaths of non-combatant civilians. The low number was presented by George W. Bush himself a few months ago at one of his staged 'town hall meetings'.
Given this, and given that Saddam Hussein's regime has been admitted by George W. Bush himself to be unrelated to the actions of 11/9/01, how can the United States claim moral or ethical right to claim justice?
I mean, in pursuit of reckless vengeance, between 11 and 30 times the number of innocent civilians have been killed. Where is the line where the actions of the Muslim terrorists become infinitesimal compared to the blood on our own hands?
It's been a long time.
And by trying to broaden the definition of treason with semantic tricks like this, you are doing the exact same thing: reinterpreting your Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Well, I'm a bit unhappy that it's happening in my lifetime, but at least I'm not living in the USA anymore.
;)
Read some history, ladies and gentlemen. Over the years there were quite a few world powers you'd never think of today: Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and so on. These were countries of POWER. They ruled the world.
And after a collapse, they're now very friendly tourist destinations with lovely countrysides and nice people - who don't get on the nerves of their neighbors.
The state collapse always followed the same pattern. And you can see the exact same thing happening in the USA now. Read it up, you nonbelievers
Personally, I like the USA citizens - at least the ones I met while I lived there for a while. It's the state which is running itself into the ground, and which will collapse relatively soon.
I'm sure the country will turn into a beautiful destination for tourist travels; it'll just take a few years.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
What? The ability to claim that your rights are somehow "inherent", and not granted by some government body or other person?
I'm scared of too many people thinking they need to look to someone else to figure out what their rights are, because at that point they stop fighting for their rights.
This is the basis of the Constitution - that government authority flows *from* the people, not the other way around. You don't have to believe in "God" to get this idea - your "creator" can be an entity, the aether, fate, or the lucky happenstance of the right quantum sequence at the moment of the Big Bang. The basis of the Constitution is the same: that your rights are not granted, but are inherent in your very existence as a sentient being.
The idea that your rights come from somewhere else is the fundamental flaw in Gonzales' reasoning. If all your rights need to be spelled out, you might as well forget it. But that's *not* the basis of the Constitution. Instead, all your rights are intact, except a few that are *explicitly* granted to the government within the Constitution.
That's why many of the founders did not like they idea of adding the Bill of Rights. They felt that spelling out those rights would lead to a "backward" interpretation of the Constitutions. Which is exactly what we have here.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Be that as it may, it still doesn't change the fact that GP tried to broaden the definition of crime "treason", or to use his own words, attempted to do an end-run around US Constitution. Getting around requirements of accusing someone of treason by declaring him the "enemy" is really no different than Bush declaring someone "enemy combatant" or "suspected terrorist"; in both cases the rule of law has been suspended for a twisted mockery of it.
In other words, the GP fits his own definition of being enemy.
GP is free to consider it treason; I agree, in fact - perverting the law you've sworn to uphold is certainly treasonous. However, we are talking about the crime of treason, something you can be judged in a court for. Treason is defined in US Constitution as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". The GP tried to get around that definition by declaring Alberto enemy; it was a purposeful effort to get the treason clause to apply to someone it doesn't, in other words, pervert the US Constitution. Which is what he accused Alberto of doing.
It is hypocritical to judge people for yielding to temptation you can't resist yourself. The GP did so. That was my point.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You're kidding, right? It's the slashdot echo chamber that prevents alternate views from being heard. There are plenty of people who have made very astute arguments concerning revolution, Reichstag Fires and secret cabals ruling us from behind the scenes but these posts are almost always modded into oblivion (as this post most likely will be).
Face it, dude. People just don't want to hear the truth. They would much rather close their eyes and go "Lalalalalalaaaa" instead of facing the awful truth. They would much rather argue back and forth about what Clinton did or how dumb Bush is. Blah blah blah.
The truth is that we're in the midst of a slow-motion fascist takeover by a shadowy elite whose ancestors planned the downfall of America from its inception. They were called "Royalists" back in the day, and they've had many names since, but the intent has always been the same: Subjugation. A free and powerful nation has always been a threat to them. Not because they love the crown, or because they love fascism. I admit, I call them "fascists" because it's a useful shorthand, but the truth is they have no motivation other than power itself. Fascism is merely means to an end.
How did this come to be? Well, there has always -- ALWAYS -- been a ruling elite on planet Earth. Whether it was kings, emperors, nobles, merchants, bankers, or warriors there has always been a ruling class. We have one now. They rule because they are rich. But two hundred years ago, America represented a threat to them simply because we were not under their control. Well, now we are. They tricked us into adopting the Federal Reserve, they bought their way into our politics and they infiltrated our business community and our military at every level (but especially the top). America has become just another one of their assets, a corporation with a board of directors (Congress) and a CEO (President) and the Global Elite are the shareholders. They've worked together behind the scenes to remake the system in their image. Outwardly, things look relatively the same, but within our... "their" government, the Elite have their people holding every important lever of power and they've endeavored to rewire our government so that it works for them, rather than for us.
I suppose I sound half-mad to many of you. But I wonder how many of you who are planning on shouting me down realize that you're acting on impulses planted in your mind by our dear, corporate-controlled media to make you think a certain way. It's so easy to silence your opposition when all you have to do is mutter the magic words and people stop thinking. In fact, I'll do it for you. "Conspiracy Theorist." There. Now you can safely ignore whatever I've said and go back to watching TV and surfing the internet for the latest trinkets that you've been brainwashed into thinking you need to buy. Enjoy.
The smartest thing the elite ever did was decide to rule from the shadows. They use visible servants as puppets (Bush) so that if the ax ever falls, it falls on the puppet's neck. Meanwhile, the puppet-master remains not only alive, but completely unseen. In fact, I don't even know who they are. I wish I could point those of you who believe that revolution is the answer in the right direction, but the insanely frustrating truth is that we don't even know who truly rules us. Obviously, it's not Bush. He's too stupid to do anything other than photo ops and speechifying. But there are hints out there. Money seems to be the key. It's the ideal method of control and it gives unlimited power to those can coin it and regulate its usage. As such, my recommendation is to look to the bankers and the blue-blooded families who control the largest banks. You've heard the names: Rockefeller, Rothschild, Warburg, but I bet you know very little about them.
I have some ideas for revealing our secre
Electric Monkey Pants