Video here

Since HC is already established precedent (Magna Carta, British Common Law), the Constitution does not NEED to enumerate it.

It is effectively filed under "duh" in American jurisprudence.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution contains this gem, which contradicts Gonzales' position:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

For once, I'm speechless.

Go Go Chinchilla!: unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety

Clearly, this is a matter of public safety. What do you have to hide?

Go Go Chinchilla!

Just wait until you hear his interpretation. Better sit down for this one:

The Constitution only prohibits suspending Habeas Corpus. It doesn't gaurantee the right to Habeas Corpus. Aparently this bastard thinks at least some class of Citizens never had Habeas Corpus in the first place. So we never took it away.

Apply this line of thinking to the Bill of Rights, and we have ourselves a problem.

It's long been the position of the administration that not every individual in the US is given habeas corpus protections. However, this added on bit "and citizens" is a wide departure, and the first time that I can think of that any administration official actually said something like that out loud.

Marcus Aurelius: Bush dug up Gonzales from some god forsaken corner of Texas when he was Governor

Hey now! That God-forsaken corner was where I grew up!

It's funny. DeLay was an exterminator and yet we still have all this vermin in DC.

Pssssst--

You can impeach an AG, too.

2wheeljunkie: Clearly, this is a matter of public safety.

3 kilodeaths due to a kamikaze attack is no excuse for this pusbag from Texas to use the Constitution for toilet paper.

What do you have to hide?

Just my small penis.

Cyberluddite: Gonzales would say...

Yes. Yes, he would.

Please come back, John Ashcroft.

*fingers melt off*

2wheeljunkie: Clearly, this is a matter of public safety. What do you have to hide?

Clearly?! There's been nothing "clear" about the workings of this administration.

/yes, I know you were being sarcastic.

What, did he go to "I'm a stupid idiot School of Law"?

DrJesusPhD: The Constitution only prohibits suspending Habeas Corpus. It doesn't guarantee the right to Habeas Corpus. Aparently this bastard thinks at least some class of Citizens never had Habeas Corpus in the first place. So we never took it away.

What the fukk?!!

BooBoo23: Does this really come as a shock to any of you?

I didn't think they'd have the balls to be so blatant.

He just plain looks and acts slimy.

He reminds me of my old slumlord or a high pressure car salesman.

Action Replay Nick: Please come back, John Ashcroft.

Abu Gonzales is to the AG what Harriet Myers would have been to the SCOTUS. Thank god she wasn't 'acceptable' to the dominionists.

Abu is clearly from the "Brownie" school of political appointees.

You know, the ones Cheney lets Bush pick all by himself.

crunch-o-matic: He reminds me of my old slumlord or a high pressure car salesman

I'd like five minutes face to face with him, so I can deck the bastard. And then I'd like to deck Bush as well. Laying those two out would be worth a visit to Gitmo.

Go Go Chinchilla!: Laying those two out would be worth a visit to Gitmo.

You posted this on Fark? You may get that trip even without the pleasure.

On the plus side, he's solving our energy problem. We'll be able to power the entire eastern seaboard by harnessing the energy of Founding Fathers rolling in their graves.

The Constitution only prohibits suspending Habeas Corpus. It doesn't guarantee the right to Habeas Corpus. Aparently this bastard thinks at least some class of Citizens never had Habeas Corpus in the first place. So we never took it away.

whaaaaaa?

Okay then... umm.... in case the gov't is watching... I for one welcome our new fascist overlords.

Remember, this is the same ignorant jerk who considers the Constitution to be quaint and outdated.

scary tag is understatement of the year... and it's only January

Alexandra: considers the Constitution to be quaint and outdated.

I think you mean the Geneva Conventions.

But probably the Constitution, too.

gilgigamesh

The constitution specifically delineates two specific situations in which the writ may be suspended. Therefore it is not a guarantee.

It's a guarantee. Conditioned, in the sense it can be temporarily suspended, but still a guarantee.

I cannot listen to his video but I'll listen and post my analysis in few hours.

gilgigamesh

Manfred Richthofen

I submit to you that a guarantee with conditions is not a guarantee.

Well, "guarantee" is not exactly a constitutional vocabulary, but it is not different from other constitutional rights, in the sense that none of the constitutional rights are absolute. It just happens to be a bit more specific as to what those circumstances are.

gilgigamesh: I submit to you that a guarantee with conditions is not a guarantee.

A guarantee with conditions is not an unconditional guarantee.

It is still, however, a guarantee.

Hamilton was nervous about this sort of this interpretation of (here, the bill of rights - but his concerns fit for enumerated laws of the people written in the constitution) of the only rights that people had.
---------------------
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
Federalist No. 84

/driveby post

Man, America was awesome.

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Article I, Section 9
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

/I'm lost. Didn't Kos prove him right???

Hey smitty, your headline is misleading flamebait.

Here's what Gonzales said in his opening statement:
(note: MCA=Military Commissions Act)

The MCA's restrictions on habeas corpus petitions did not represent any break from the past. Indeed, it has been well-established since World War 2 that enemy combatants captured abroad have no constitutional right to habeas petitions in the United States courts. As the Supreme Court recognized in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), the extension of habeas corpus to alien combatants captured abroad "would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy," id. at 779, and the Constitution requires no such thing, see id. at 780-81. The Constitution did not give the right of habeas corpus to the several hundred thousand German and Japanese soldiers detained by the United States during World War 2, and it does not provide that right to the alien enemy combatants detained in the present conflict.

He didn't say Americans don't have the right to Habeas Corpus. Nice try though!

Descartes: Hey smitty, your headline is misleading flamebait.

Not necessarily. Is that the comment that Senator Specter was questioning him about?

Nerdlinger: Not necessarily. Is that the comment that Senator Specter was questioning him about?


I don't know, I can't find an official transcript.
I wish I had wrote "somewhat misleading flamebait." What I wrote was too harsh.

gilgigamesh: What do you think he would say about US citizens captured abroad and designated enemy combatants?

The Supreme Court has already ruled that US Citizens captured while fighting overseas must be granted due process in American courts. If he doesn't agree with that, they should impeach his ass.

/I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I probably shouldn't have stepped in. Have fun with the flamewar without me!

Here's what Gonzalez needs:



After all, nothing in the Constitution specifically prohibits anyone from kicking the attorney general in the nuts.

/I'm lost. Didn't Kos prove him right???

That's what I thought, too. Plus, judges are paid to interpret the Constitution, not lawyers.

I am no fan of this administration, but it seems to me that people are being awful nitpicky about what they say.

The big picture, like say how we screwed the pooch on an entire region of the world, should mean much, much more.

america is doomed