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.
The Second Amendment is starting to look better and better all the time.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
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If you have no clue what the 9th and 10th amendments are, and you think the 2nd amendment is outdated or a 'states right' (*snicker), YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.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.
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.
"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]
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
hypocrisy? that's like saying a judge who might have stepped on a few ants then convicting a serial killer for murder is a hypocrite. one guy is weaseling out of a situation regarding his personal life, the other is trying to undermine our consitutional right to habeas corpus.
seriously, you're a fucking moron for even trying to equate the two. i'm usually not this harsh on people, but this news should be a serious concern for american citizens.
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.
I've been thinking for years, that this country is turning into a police state.
A little late, aren't you? The second Bush asserted the right to lock up anyone, citizen or otherwise, 'enemy combatant' or otherwise, this country became, ipso facto, a police state.
A 'police state' doesn't require 'fascism' or whatever, a police state is simply a country in which the police or military do not have to answer to a court as to why they are holding someone prisoner. Aka, Habeas Corpus.
Bush's administration managed to pretend that POWs don't get trials, just various Geneva rights, and that their prisoners are not entitled to those rights, and the fucks in the media went along with the lie, and we suddenly because a police state. Everyone, being held by the government, legally gets a trial, even POWs, no exceptions whatsoever. (It's just POWs don't want trials, because then they'd stop being protected POWs and start being imprisoned felons.)
Everyone has the right to a trial, or you are in a police state by definition, it's not even arguable. That's what a police state is, a state where the executive arm of the government can imprison people without trials. Everything else is just dressing. It's called a police state because no other part of the government has any power, the judicial because there are no trials, and the legislature because the actual written laws have ceased to be important without actual trials, the 'law' is whatever the executive branch feels like doing.
In this country, only the legislature can disable Habeas Corpus, and then only during times of armed insurrection or actual invasion. Which, incidentally, they have not done.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
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
...but this news should be a serious concern for american citizens.
Well, it's not. And move out of the way, I'm trying to see the TV.
What?
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.
Whenener I posted this opinion on this here forum, I was modded as a troll.
Haven't you noticed that when people begin their posts with "I'm going to get modded troll for this..." they usualy get +5 Insightful instead? Try it sometime.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
For that reason, i always felt that since it says all men, that these rights should be extended no non-citizens. Not just Americans. Including terrorists (if they're really terrorists, the court will convict them). Sort of an affirmation in our faith in our system.
You may be interested, then, to note that nowhere in the Constitution or its Amendments is the word "Citizen" used to distinguish between the natural rights of "Citizens" as opposed to "People" or "Person" (except, of course, for eligibility for certain offices), which means that the protections of the Constitution are guaranteed to all Persons falling under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, whether by Citizenship or by Location. In fact, the word "Citizen" does not even appear *once* in the Bill of Rights.
Yes, including terrorists.
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---