Gonzales:"Constitution...doesn't say every citizen is...assured the right of habeas"

[hm0504]

Dang it, the Canadian media must be censoring coverage of the massive riots that must be breaking out in the U.S. over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales statement that "There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution" [1].

Could someone enlighten me about the degree to which Americans are reacting to their Attorney General basically saying that the U.S. government is free to imprison U.S. citizens indefinitely for no reason at all.

Thanks

[1] http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/
(read it and weep)

[Naturist Mark]

The US corporate media barely covers the daily outrages of the Bush Administration. Most people don't see a big change in their daily lives (unless they look Arab), so they are unconcerned, therefore the mainstream media doesn't cover it, therefore they remain unconcerned.

Besides, to explain why having the top law enforcement official in the US dismiss the 700+ year old right of habeas corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus) as no longer a right, you would have to explain what it is and why it is important. Easier to make money reporting on teachers seducing students.

By the way, Gonzales is completely daft, his argument is that the Constitutional prohibition against suspending the right of habeas corpus does not mean that it IS a right. He makes Clinton's talk of the what the definition of "is is" seem positively lucid.

To be sure, the alternative press, Olbermann, and the blogosphere are all over the story.

Google News (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Gonzales+habeas+corpus&btnG=Search)

Video of Gonzales testimony (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/19/earth-to-alberto/)

Stephen Colbert Defends Alberto Gonzalez (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/23/colbert-defends-alberto-gonzalez/)

The #1 response to Gonzo's abolition of the Great Writ: "We’re just overreacting. It’ll take years for this to affect white people."

-Mark

[missouriboy]

To paraphrase someone else from long ago and far away...

"If dat what Gonzales say, den Gonzales is a ***, a idiot."

[missouriboy]

Oh, wait. If Gonzales said
There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution. then he's most likely quite literally correct.

But what we need to do then, is kick him out and get someone in there who understands that none of the people's rights are expressly granted by the Constitution, but instead are recognized by it to pre-exist the Constitution, and then to deny the government any power to infringe them. If he should act to violate that, wouldn't that be an impeachable offense?

[usmc1]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
Oh, wait. If Gonzales said<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution. then he's most likely quite literally correct.

But what we need to do then, is kick him out and get someone in there who understands that none of the people's rights are expressly granted by the Constitution, but instead are recognized by it to pre-exist the Constitution, and then to deny the government any power to infringe them. If he should act to violate that, wouldn't that be an impeachable offense? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I almost get your point. But the first 8 amendments do expressly "grant" certain rights and the 9th cleans it up by saying, in effect, that there are other rights not specifically enumerated in the previous amendments.

But, if your point is that the Cosntituion did not "originate" those rights and that they derive man's creator, then you are correct.

But, as a matter of law and poltics, it is the Constitution which provides the "guarantee" of those rights.

What you wrote also infers that those rights are immutable and apply to all persons, U.S. Citizen or not, as long as they are in areas where the laws are based on the U.S. Cosntitution.

Yes, I think that Gonzalez treds on thin ice when he suggests that habeas corpus does not ascend from the 4th and 9th amendments to the constituion.

Does willful misinterpretation rise to the level of impeachable offense? I would not have thought so, until the Clinton debacle. But, now..who knows.

I think, that now with the dems in control of the legislature, that oversisght will rein in our little top cop!

[hm0504]

Though I certainly do not support Clinton's misrepresentation, there is nonetheless a world of difference between an under the table bl*wj*b and a government that seeks to disembowel America of basic fundamental human rights recognized for centuries.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by hm0504:
Though I certainly do not support Clinton's misrepresentation, there is nonetheless a world of difference between an under the table bl*wj*b and a government that seeks to disembowel America of basic fundamental human rights recognized for centuries.

Actually, that was my point. If Clinton could be brought to trial in the Senate for something as minor as getting a little stray and trying to inveigle and prevaricate his way out of it certainly the purposeful "misinterpretation" of the constitution and standing law could rise to impeachment level.

As I also said, i don't look for it to happen. More likely we will see more severe oversight and a backing off by the administration from it more outlandishly facist acts.

[nacktman]

This is a very serious matter ...
To paraphrase:

I did not speak when they came for the jews ... I am not a jew.
I did not speak when they came for the gypsies ... I am not a gypsy.
I did not speak when they came for the homosexuals ... I am not a homosexual.
Now they have come for me ... who is left to speak for me?

Gonzales is an a$$ of the first order and an idiot to boot.


BTW, the thing with Clinton was not the 'misrepesentation' some think. He was answering a question posed to him using a court ordered definition of what was and was not 'sex', and using that court ordered definition the only truthful answer was "NO" to the question of did he have 'sex' with Monica. The 'misrepresentation' occured in the prosecutor Starr's insistance on the definition and the judge's ruling that was the definition to be used in court.
As to the entire 'issue' ... what man (not of the swinger lifestyle), would admit to any type of affair from the get go anyway?

[Caipora]

As to the entire 'issue' ... what man (not of the swinger lifestyle), would admit to any type of affair from the get go anyway?
I think you're missing the crux of the matter.

First, imagine admitting an affair.

Now, imagine being married to Hillary and admitting an affair.

See the difference?

On a more serious note, down here in Brazil there was a repressive military government not too long ago, and many people high in Government, including the current and previous President, numerous ministers, senators and Congressmen, were personally repressed back then. They know what it means. While there are certainly failures of the police, the courts, and the prisons here, people are trying to do better. Bush, it seems, is trying to do worse.

Of course I do try to make sure not only that I know who the Attorney General is, but that he knows who I am.

- Caipora

[Naturist Mark]

Yes, I think that Gonzalez treds on thin ice when he suggests that habeas corpus does not ascend from the 4th and 9th amendments to the constituion.

Technically he would be correct. Habeas is not an unenumerated right that ascends from the 9th or 4th amendments, because it is a directly (if not expressly) enumerated privilege in Article One Section 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Sect ion_9:_Limits_on_Congress) of the Constitution.

(And no, there is no significance to the term 'privilege' being used rather than 'right'. The Great Writ was inherited via English common law.)

-Mark

[alfredr]

Section nine: Limits on Congress.

Congress can't suspend habeus corpus. What about limits on the executive?

Thanks for the link, Mark.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, I think that Gonzalez treds on thin ice when he suggests that habeas corpus does not ascend from the 4th and 9th amendments to the constituion.

Technically he would be correct. Habeas is not an unenumerated right that ascends from the 9th or 4th amendments, because it is a directly (if not expressly) enumerated privilege in Article One Section 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Sect ion_9:_Limits_on_Congress) of the Constitution.

(And no, there is no significance to the term 'privilege' being used rather than 'right'. The Great Writ was inherited via English common law.)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah you're correct, I was thinking more in terms of the enumerations of the fourth and that habeas, while not mentioned specifically, would arise from that and if not, certainly from the catch-all ninth.

I guess that's why lawyers make careers of arguing such. Should worked harder on my brief, good thing my old man owns the firm.

[Naturist Mark]

Congress can't suspend habeus corpus. What about limits on the executive?

Lincoln tried to suspend habeas on his own during a time of rebellion, but the Supreme Court struck it down. It ruled that even during war habeas can only be suspended by act of Congress. Subsequently Congress passed an act suspending habeas.

The Supreme Court just reaffirmed that ruling in the Hamdam case, invalidating Bush's suspension of habeas. Of course Bush continues to violate habeas.

Last year's last minute passage of the "military tribunals act" by the Republican majority before it lost power allows suspension of habeas, but is likely to be ruled unconstitutional since the USA is not under rebellion or insurrection as required by the Constitution.

-Mark

[nacktman]

Insurrection may not be the most apt term for what we have been experiencing for the last six years but it's pretty darn close.

The cabal has and is doing all it can to destroy this country.
It is morbidly funny that those that are the 'rebels' against what this country is are the ones attempting to suspend a right of ALL men.

I for one can't wait to see their faces and hear their howls of protest when it is their right of Habeas Corpus being denied to them.
Oh, wait, that's right I won't see or hear them as their non-right of Habeas keeps them from doing so, silly me.

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Oh, wait. If Gonzales said<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution. then he's most likely quite literally correct.

But what we need to do then, is kick him out and get someone in there who understands that none of the people's rights are expressly granted by the Constitution, but instead are recognized by it to pre-exist the Constitution, and then to deny the government any power to infringe them. If he should act to violate that, wouldn't that be an impeachable offense? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I almost get your point. But the first 8 amendments do expressly "grant" certain rights and the 9th cleans it up by saying, in effect, that there are other rights not specifically enumerated in the previous amendments.

No, the constitution grants powers to the government, not rights to the people. I suspect you know this already, else why enclose the word "grant" in quotes?

But, if your point is that the Cosntituion did not "originate" those rights and that they derive man's creator, then you are correct.

That's pretty close. Thanks.

But, as a matter of law and poltics, it is the Constitution which provides the "guarantee" of those rights.

Yes. By denying the government any power to make (future) laws that would infringe the (present) rights of the people. "Present" being at the time of, and prior to, the penning of the constitution.

What you wrote also infers that those rights are immutable and apply to all persons, U.S. Citizen or not, as long as they are in areas where the laws are based on the U.S. Cosntitution.

I'm not so sure about that. Your phrase "in areas where the laws are" is more tightly, and legally, defined as "under the jurisdiction of." Everyone enjoys "human rights" but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone enjoys United States Constitutional rights; only those persons who are "under its jurisdiction." But that's not the subject of this topic...

Yes, I think that Gonzalez treds on thin ice when he suggests that habeas corpus does not ascend from the 4th and 9th amendments to the constituion.

No, he's technically correct. Doesn't it arise from the Magna Carta, in 1215? But you're right that the constitution recognizes and specifically protects it.

Does willful misinterpretation rise to the level of impeachable offense? I would not have thought so, until the Clinton debacle. But, now..who knows.

I added the impeachment question as a whimsical suggestion. So, like you say, who knows...?

I think, that now with the dems in control of the legislature, that oversisght will rein in our little top cop! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Whether we agree on how the constitution is worded isn't the point. What's going down here is that Gonzales is working to prepare the unwashed to accept one more spoke in Bush's big-wheel grab of Presidential powers that are NOT in the constitution. Can't you see that he worded his statement that way on purpose? He's counting on the lazy majority to accept his proclamation, while at the same time Covering His *** by being absolutely certain that his actual words are irrefutably correct!

This is a well-known tactic of propagandists, and needs to be recognized and countered by those of us who know better, instead of bickering among ourselves about where the rights come from. This is another of the intended tactics of the power-grabbers: divert the masses into partisan squabbling while we do as we please and get away with it!

[hm0504]

"Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on anti-terror policy"...


From The Associated Press:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases.

...


More here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/17/america/NA-GE...ational-Security.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/17/america/NA-GEN-US-Attorney-General-National-Security.php)

[nacktman]

The latest, now is that Monica Goodling has decided she won't testify before Congress and is asserting her fifth amendment right to avoid self incrimination about her knowledge and involvement in the hocus pocus world of the neocon denial of reality.

And who is Monica Gooling one asks?

She is the chief assistant to our friend and happer camper Alberto Gonzales.
Does she not realize that by asserting her fifth amendment right to avoid self incrimination she is doing exactly that ... incriminating herself?!

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by nacktman:
And who is Monica Goodling one asks?

She is the chief assistant to our friend and happer camper Alberto Gonzales.
Does she not realize that by asserting her fifth amendment right to avoid self incrimination she is doing exactly that ... incriminating herself?!

Scuttlebutt is that she isn't afraid of incriminating herself, she is afraid to tell the truth. Her biggest nightmare is that Congress will grant her immunity to compel testimony, and that she or someone in her family will then suffer an 'accident' or some other form of retribution.

The Valerie Plame Wilson affair is a powerful warning to truth tellers. As is the fact that not a single government whistleblower (http://www.nswbc.org/index.htm) has been protected as required by law in the past 6 years.

Interesting resume - Monica Goodling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/03/27/BL2007032701000.html) , 33, graduated from Messiah College in 1995, Law Degree in 1999 from Pat Robertson's Regent University (where John Ashcroft now teaches and runs a pipeline filled with religious right recruits directly into the Bush Administration). She signed up with the DOJ in 2001 in the PR department. Eventually rose to be counsel to Gonzalez and DOJ White House liaison - and was also loaned out to the Virginia US Attorney's office - presumably to earn some litigation credentials for her own appointment as a US Attorney under the new we don't need no steenkin' Senate confirmation rules.

In her lawyer's letter to the committee, explaining her decision to plead the Fifth Amendment the very interesting claim is made that she has broken no laws, but fears that the hostile environment of the hearing will expose her to legal charges, and gives examples of a long list of past witnesses prosecuted for perjury. Of course they all lied. And Monica can only be subject to perjury charges if she lies - why would she invoke a 5th Amendment defense predicated on the assumption that she will HAVE TO LIE?

Doesn't really matter - that isn't a legal use of the 5th Amendment - you can't plead it as an alternative to lying.

-Mark

[NakedTao]

Without habeas corpus, as Olbermann pointed out, 9/10 of the Bill of Rights would be useless (the sole right remaining being the Third Amendment, which prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes).

Also, not only am I worried about Gonzales, I really worry about Mike Hayden, who proved that he has no idea what the Fourth Amendment - which protects against unlawful searches and seizures without a warrant - really says (he conveniently left out the warrant part).

One last point: the U.S. system of law is quite complex. The Constitution is simply the cornerstone of U.S. law, and a very important one.

[usmc1]

The White House has been systematically concealing e-mails which contain strategy and policy discussions, including the firing of federal prosecutors, via e-mail at "unofficial" sites which would not normally be considered part of the "Presidential Records".

Hey Ma, we've got to run up to the feed store, even more chickens is comin' home to roost!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/09/white.house.emails/index.html

I wonder if these yahoos all had yahoo accounts.

[Naturist Mark]

Alberto proved himself to be a highly functional amnesiac in his congressional testimony. George Bush declared his performance increased his confidence in Gonzalez. Apparently George is alone among 300 million Americans in thinking Gonzo did a good job. ...


But maybe not ...

The Daily Show "America's Finest News Source" (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/) suggests Alberto's amnesiathon was a brilliant success. And despite playing it for laughs, I think they may be exactly right.

Watch the segment here: Bush’s Band of Idiot-Geniuses (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/26/daily-show-bushs-band-of-idiot-geniuses/)

-Mark

[xgsft]

Gonzales needs the boot. I would like to hear one good thing this guy has done for our country. I have seen nothing I like out of this guy.

[nacktman]

Now, Alberto is out and about saying ... "I said things I shouldn't have..."

Okay, now, just what did he say anyway and when, in relation to his statements today?
It's sometimes difficult to follow the blatherings of idiots.

[usmc1]

<span class="ev_code_Red">BLOODY MONDAY!</span>

In a blow to the Bush administration, the deputy attorney general and the only Democrat on the White House's Privacy and Civil Liberties board have resigned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18665704/site/newsweek/

[hm0504]

" Aide: Ill Ashcroft pressed to approve domestic spying":
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/15/ashcroft.nsa/index.html

[usmc1]

<span class="ev_code_red">Gonzales was told of FBI violations</span>

After getting report, attorney general said he knew of no wrongdoing

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19685278/

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

[Naturist Mark]

Buh Bye, Buh Bye

Alberto is resigning ... finally.

After Ashcroft resigned the question was where was Bush going to find a worse candidate for the job of Attorney General?

Then came Gonzales.

Can Bush possibly find a worse candidate than Alberto? ... Maybe Rove can be persuaded to come out of almost retirement?

-Mark

[nudebushwalker]

Gonzalez is quitting!

Saving the administration over there the obvious embarrassments of him facing impeachment !!

People Power in action - it's happened before (in France, the USA (against the English..), Poland, Russia..), and now it may be raising it's head again in the USA after a couple hundred years...

Now I would like to see someone sack Bush..

And then in Oz and "the ol' Blighty" (that's England..) they can start looking into their nefarious links with our pollies and bosses - one can still only hope and dream.

[Naturist Mark]

Can Bush possibly find a worse candidate than Alberto? ...
Ding ding ding ding ding

We have a winnah! -------> Michael Chertoff

[usmc1]

Dang pesky old liberals went and rode an "honorable" man out of office or else you can read this succinct three graph summation with a case for the Dems to assert themselves with the little sociopath's next appointee.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/27/123813/694

[Baron Lake]

Yep Chertoff was at the top of the list but the shrub's handlers are backing off that choice. Seems there is this "Katrina" thing. May be time to consult the Oral Roberts *** laude roster.
Hey, is Jeb Bush a lawyer? Might be a nice stepping stone.

b.l.

[Naturist Mark]

Hey, is Jeb Bush a lawyer? Might be a nice stepping stone.

There is a theory that Cheney will suddenly decide to retire early for 'medical reasons', and that Jeb will be brought in "support his brother" ... and take the nomination away from the lightweights currently running. That is unless the neo-cons don't think it is necessary to have an election ...

[barenaked1]

Touche!

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Buh Bye, Buh Bye

Alberto is resigning ... finally.

After Ashcroft resigned the question was where was Bush going to find a worse candidate for the job of Attorney General?

Then came Gonzales.

Can Bush possibly find a worse candidate than Alberto? ... Maybe Rove can be persuaded to come out of almost retirement?

-Mark

[fred950]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Can Bush possibly find a worse candidate than Alberto? ... Maybe Rove can be persuaded to come out of almost retirement?

-Mark

How 'bout "Brownie"?

[fred950]

Did I say Brownie? MMMMM, let's see, we said worse than ol' Berto. With luck, the job will last about a year and a half. The pension a great. With my pension fund needing some 'fattening up' plus absolutly NO legal expirience, the next AG...ME!

[usmc1]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The scandal that helped force the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may be headed to a grand jury and possible criminal charges.

A government official says the Justice Department is considering launching a grand jury investigation into whether one of its former leaders misled Congress about playing politics with hiring decisions.

The move follows a yearlong inquiry by the department's inspector general. It examined whether former acting assistant attorney general Bradley Schlozman gave hiring preference to conservative loyalists over better-qualified lawyers at Justice's civil rights division.

A government official confirmed the grand jury referral. Schlozman declined comment.