AG Gonzalez on Habeas Corpus just now (OMG)

verbatim I am transcribing this from the video
ON EDIT- corrected typo

Gonzo just before this exchange "Just because they talked about the Constitutional right to habeas corpus doesn't mean the decision was about the Constitutional right to habeas corpus"


"There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution, there is a prohibition against taking it away"


Specter "now wait a minute wait a minute the Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?"

Gonzo "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"

Specter "You may treading on you interdiction of violating common sense"

... in ANY position of trust, particularly as a judge, AG, or even attorney!

He said that the Constitution does not "grant" a human right of habeas corpus. In making this corrupt claim, he's clearly implying that the role of the Constitution is to create or specify what human rights exist. IT'S NOT! In no way, shape, or form can the Constitution ever be seen as conferring human rights or civil liberties. Why? Because it's very existence is premised upon the pre-existing human rights to even write it!! Without the superior and pre-existing rights and liberties of human beings to establish their own government, no government can be regarded as morally legitimate.

The sole role of the Constitution is to establish a federal government and define its LIMITS! The federal government cannot legitimately overstep the boundaries established in the Constitution, and that includes the specific prohibition on abrogating the right of habeas corpus except VERY temporarily in the event of rebellion or insurrection - NEITHER of which exist!

When Gonzo attempted to abolish the claim to habeas corpus as not being established in the Constitution, he FOREVER proved himself corrupt and an enemy of our liberties and freedoms. NOTHING could more clearly indicate his corruption than that, imho.

ON EDIT- :sarcasm:

Gonzalez clearly thinks that he is still operating under the complete lack of rules as when the Republicans held the majority. That is clearly not the case.

EXCELLENT post TahitiNut

He's giving sworn testimony AND he's sworn an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" AND he's sworn in as a member of the Bar. IMHO, he's violating ALL those oaths. He's every bit as sleazy as Cheney ... maybe more so since he's the chief LAW enforcement officer in the US - and that includes enforcement over the Executive Branch, too. He is NOT a defense counsel for the GOP or even the administration. He's "the People's lawyer." He's obligated to be an advocate for The People, not the GOP. He's engaging in the grossest malpractice, imho.

Re >>He's giving sworn testimony AND he's sworn an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" AND he's sworn in as a member of the Bar. IMHO, he's violating ALL those oaths.<<

Anyone who is THAT clueless about the Constitution has no business practicing law, let alone serving as Attorney General! If he were disbarred Bush would HAVE to fire him whether he wants to or not.

Couldn't God and Goddess give him a great big Wart that closed off his right eye or something?

<After watching him for about three minutes on CSpan, I turned the channel to some inane sit com.

I just can't let Pure Evil sit in my living room

In that it makes clear the rights are inhernet. So does the Declaration. The rights exist intrinsically and as absolutes. The Constitution merely says they gov't can't do a thing to subrogate those pre-existing rights except under exigent circumstances.
The Professor

It's a misconception that raises my ire like no other - the specious notion that the Constitution somehow "confers" or "grants" rights to people. No way. No how. Even the phrase "Constitutional rights" clings perilously over the brink of idiocy, permitting the claimant to somehow reference the Constitution as the sole arbiter of human rights.

The Constitution does one thing and one thing alone: It defines and establishes the federal government and clearly puts boundaries and limitations on that Federal Frankensteinian Monster. Some of those boundaries relate to the pre-existing and superior human rights under which it even gains its sole legitimacy - placing strict limits on the degree to which The People will tolerate any temporary abridgement of those rights only under the most dire of national emergencies.

This Regime pretends that their powers are SUPERIOR to those of The People and, in so doing, violate the most basic of provisions in our form of government.

Even impeachment, removal, indictment, conviction, and imprisonment is too good for these corrupt maggots ... and absolutely nothing less can do. "Off the table" my ass!
:grr:

I thoroughly enjoy your posts.

The senator should have pointed out that what rights people have is irrelevant. What's relevant is what rights that Alberto Gonzalez has. With regards to Habeas, he (the government) has no right to tamper with it.

This guy is AG!

:eyes:

:crazy: :scared:

:banghead:

What kind of rocks do these guys crawl out from under, anyways? We must find out so that we can destroy their habitat. I mean it.

It WRITTEN in the Constitution.

everything they do.

a "right" in the bill of rights is a right that is a given...you have it...a basic right ...a foundational right...or gateway right...a right you have regardless of any other rights.. a right that must exist if freedom and liberty is to exist...a protection from abuse by government.

but the Bush administrations take has always been if it doesn't say specifically that we can't do it, then we can do it..and if it doesn't use the precise language that it is a right...."you have the right to HC"...then it isn't a right..nevermind what is inherent in the statement " the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended"...Bush and his fellow war criminals attach a loose reading to the language and act from there.

torture isn't torture if you define torture to exclude acts of torture you engage in

same thought process...

Scalia's comments about the right to vote is what alerted me to this. This is a common held belief in the rightwing and in RW thinktanks and punditry just like Gonzo's opinion about habeas


Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.



Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.



Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments

but nowhere does it say you HAVE the right to vote except the partS where it does.

rather the loose reading of the language...and to be strict to that....removing all context from the language (letter of the law -written/ spirit of the law...the context)the letter of the law is open to abuse without the context of the law

you can't read anything and know what you're reading without the context

So what so new about any of this anyway :shrug:

Driving large wholesale trucks between the words written in US Constitution does not make it anything new. History proves that they have been doing that since it was written

sometimes more blatant than others...Gonzales (Bush Inc)is more blatant and thereby more noticeable

it's been the slow erosion of rights through sublte manipulation that has allowed for - opened the door to - the more blatant...

Like the frogs in the pot of boiling water...an abrupt increase of heat causes alarm and action...a slow increase just causes the frogs to shift and resettle

women didn't have the right to vote.

And even though all folks over 18 years of age can vote, there are still limitations: felons, for example, can have their inherent, inalienable right revoked.

During the Nuremberg Trials the AmericanlLawyers decided that a war crime is any crime against humanity committed by the Nazis but not the Brits or the Americans. Things such as nuclear bombings and carpet bombings of civilian areas were excluded. One U.S. general openly expressed his relief that the Allies had won the war, because he knew that if they had lost the Nazis would have had him on trial for his crimes.

he's just doing his job. Attorneys don't get to pick the legal arguments they can use. If that's all he's got, I don't fault him for at least doing what he is paid to do.

But again, Specter got it right that Gonzo is not going to get far with that argument.

Edit: As one of my professors says: "You prefer to be able to present arguments that don't make you embarrassed to do so...but sometimes you have no choice."

This behavior is exactly the opposite of doing his job.

Sorry.

However, that was to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this nation. This particular argument is about how to interpret the Constitution.

What Gonzo was saying is this: The Constitution does not explicitly grant habeas corpus. It is granted by implication. That was the point.

I don't think he was trying to say that we don't have it...I think perhaps he was trying to say that it is not as important as rights explicitly granted in the Constitution.

Again, they are two separate arguments:

1) Is the right of habeas corpus granted in the Constitution? and

2) If so, is it explicitly or implicitly granted?

(2) is what Gonzo is talking about, probably because he wants to make the argument that a right is less fundamental, and thus less protected, if it is not explicitly granted.

The Constitution places LIMITS government.

Are the Amendments part of the Constitution? Of course.

However, one may argue that the unamended Constitution grants no rights. That may be the case (I'm not sure about the truth or falsity of that claim), but the first ten were ratified as part of the same political movement as the "original" Constitution. Ratification of the Constitution occurred in 1789 and ratification of the Bill of Rights occurred in 1791.

I not only believe that the Amendments are part of the Constitution but, assuming most aren't, I believe the first ten can be considered part of the original Constitution.

And the Amendments do grant rights. See the VIth as an example. (Cited in a post below).

Not to abridge freedom of speech is to allow it; i.e., to grant it AS A RIGHT.

There are two ways to grant a right: Explicitly and implicitly.

You point out how a right is granted implicitly.

Gonzo was pointing out that the right to habeas corpus is not granted explicitly. To acknowledge that is not to say that the right is not granted implicitly.

And my point was that I think Gonzo was trying to say that an implicit right is not as protected as an explicit right.

Edit: However, I am a bit apprehensive about committing to the statement that the denial of one thing is the affirmation of another.

This is an attempt to subvert it, there is no question about that at all. None.

"you go to Senate Judiciary Hearings with the arguments you have, not the arguments you WISH you had."

:evilgrin:

His job is not to lie to protect a corrupt administration. I would venture a guess he has a legal obligation to expose a corrupt administration were it to come to his attention. There is such a thing as legal malpractice and disbarrment. I would venture a guess if he said something like that in front of most judges in this country, his competence would be seriously questioned.

His argument is not without a small bit of merit. He states that there is no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution.

He is most certainly correct there.

However, the argument is bogus because it is almost without doubt that habeas corpus is implicitly granted.

Remember, we all came down hard on a Justice official encouraging corporations to not hire attorneys who are representing people in Gitmo. I'll come down just as hard on those who tell lawyers what arguments they can and can't make. The argument may be B.S. but no lawyer should be precluded from making it.

Not George Bush's. There is absolutly no justification for him making that argument. An attorney that made such a wild argument in a criminal trial would cause the Supreme Court to consider seriously whether a defendant had competent legal representation. We surely shouldn't hold the Attorney General to a lesser standard.

"..I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.."

in order to determine if they are legitimate?

Oh, wait...that is exactly what the whole purpose of a trial/hearing is...

"Well, everyone I've talked to said all of our arguments won't really work so you should just give it up."

No. No one but the person who must be convinced knows whether an argument will convince him/her. That is why we go to court. MANY times both sides are stunned by which arguments the court decides to agree with.

Gonzo's argument sucks but it is what lawyers do.

This isn't random legal precedent, this is habeas corpus. I don't know whether you're in law school or practicing or what - but you clearly need more experience if you think you can go into court and say any damn thing you want. You can't.

not explicitly stated is not "just anything."

A right is granted either explicitly or implicitly. In order to show that that right is not granted, you must show that it is neither explicitly or implicitly granted, i.e., you must prove both. You don't show that it is not a right by simply saying: "It's not"...and vice versa.

And you would be wise to hold back on the personal attacks when your knowledge is based on a few posts.

I didn't attack you. I gave you information based on my own experience in the legal profession. Lawyers DO vet the legal precedence and constitutionality of their arguments. They do not just go to court, willy nilly, saying any old thing. Telling someone the truth is not an attack.

Habeas corpus is the issue, no matter how hard you try to distort it. It is so essential to the basis of civil rights for every individual that the founding fathers were explicit in stating it "shall not be suspended" - except for rebellion or national security.

There are lawyers in this thread. Go argue with them.

Bye.

I'll meet you in the middle and say it was a below-the-belt passive aggressive jab.

And no, lawyers don't just say anything. But an argument that something is not in the Constitution because it is not expressly granted is not empty. (And note, once again, that I personally think the right of habeas corpus is implicitly granted.)

I actually think habeas is more important than the founders obviously thought it was. Were I to draft the Constitution, it would explicitly be granted in the "Rights Section" and possibly immune from suspension in all instances.

You -- are lawyers supposed to vet all their arguments

Me -- yes duh. And later - I don't know whether you're in law school or practicing. (Well gee, I don't) But lawyers can't go into court and say anything they want.

:shrug:

Not below the belt. Not passive agressive. Just a pure statement of fact. Lawyers vet their arguments. They do not throw out any old argument because the judge might agree with it, as you said above. That's all.

You want to continue arguing that habeas corpus isn't a right in the Constitution, knock yourself out.

That's all...truce.

Now, where do I argue that habeas corpus is not a right in the Constitution? In fact, in most of my posts, I repeatedly point out that I believe the right exists (repeatedly because I had a feeling something like this would happen).

then why are you posting?? You've admitted lawyers do have a standard to meet in their arguments. That's in direct opposition to your original statement that you don't fault him for using whatever lame argument he can dream up.

If you think habeas is a right, and you don't think a lawyer can really pull legal arguments out of their ass, then I don't know what you're arguing anymore.

And perhaps I was not specific enough before and for that I apologize. Lawyers can't say anything in court but if the argument, i.e., the "anything", is a legal argument relating to vagueness or ambiguity, wide latitude is, and should, be given.

Assume the Constitution does not grant explicitly grant X. It would not be a violation of any ethical rule to argue that X is therefore not granted. Of course, the opposition would point out that X is granted implicitly.

And again...if X = the right of habeas corpus, I agree that X is implicitly granted in the Constitution.

It is a rather simple document that most folks can understand. They directly addressed your argument. Did you know that? I bet everyone in the Senate Judiciary knows it, including the dumbass AG, and that is why he is breeching his oath. He should be punished, harshly to the limits of the law. Justice, no mercy.

From the Bill of Rights:

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



No one needs to be a lawyer to understand this stuff. The AG is a liar and has broken any trust with the people. Do you know what oaths are for? Do you think they matter? Or can anyone just say any damn thing any time they want? Don't go near the kool-aide.

I'm not kidding about this.

ignored by the Supreme Court.

They were added to appease those during the founding who thought a list of some rights would lead to the denial of those not listed (which seems to have happened).

And yes, I have not only read the Constitution but have studied it. And it is not a "rather simple document". A constitution is not a statute and must therefore be vague. The interplay between the different sections can be complex. Plus, dozens of cases are litigated over the meanings of even the most common terms.

The defense of his behavior that you were trying to advance is also contradicted in the document.

How much plainer can it be? The document IS simple. And the folks who wrote it knew that there would be dastardly attempts to subvert it. That's why they kept it simple. I think everyone has to read it at some time or another. When I went to school, the Declaration of Independence was taught as the document that explains our rights; what they are and where they come from. The Constitution has nothing to do with it, really. Tahiti Nut is has the right idea in his very lucid posts upthread about defining our government.

If the AG were to make the argument that someone can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without Habeas, then that might be a different matter. Everyone would see how nutty he was, but that would be a different argument entirely. The problem here is that the argument which he chooses to advance instead, is one that violates his oath.

Tell me if you don't see the difference here?

"There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution, there is a prohibition against taking it away"

"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."

First, do you deny the truth of the first statement? If so, please cite the Article, Section and Clause where habeas is explicitly granted. The second statement is simply him explaining his first. Again, where does the Constitution explicitly grant habeas corpus?

Now, everyone here has jumped on that and incorrectly assumed he means that there is no right of habeas corpus. He is not saying that.

Again, he is saying it is not explicitly granted.

Why would he point that out? I think it is because he wants to make the argument that explicitly granted rights are more protected than implicitly granted rights.

You say that the argument he makes is contradicted by the Constitution (presumably the IXth Amendment). What right is he denying? He is not denying a right; he is denying the explicit grant of a right.

I'm not quite sure what defense I made you are referring to that is contradicted by the Constitution.

Finally, the Constitution is not simple. If it were, there would not be volumes and volumes of Supreme Court cases defining that very document.

What do you think the purpose of the 9th amendment is? Why was it written? You are claiming that, somehow, it does not directly contradict this argument.

OK, if it was not written for the purpose of directly contradicting this type of argument, what is it's purpose?

The argument has become, once again, that the IXth Amendment must have absolutely no purpose at all; it's just an odd collection of words strewn together. You cannot be serious, can you? Words have no actual meanings anymore, I guess, it's only important what you can get some folks to say things mean.

Just because a lot of people (even judges at times, like in Bush v Gore, for example) are dishonest, does not prove that the Constitution is complicated. It only proves that some people are not honest. What else is new.

Under the AG's interpretation, what does the IXth Amendment do again? Nothing? Just words for no purpose? He is actually denying that the words mean anything. That is what is being denied.

on edit> There are no rights granted in the Constitution. It does not work that way. It only denies the government any power to abridge certain rights. And in the case of Habeas, it grants the government power to abridge it under certain circumstances.

My point is that Gonzo is not saying the right doesn't exist. He is saying the it is not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Again...again...I am not saying that the right to habeas is not in the Constitution (nor do I think Gonzo is saying that). I am saying that the right to habeas corpus is not explicitly granted, i.e., it is implicitly granted. But, it is still granted.

I would love to see the IX Amendment utilized the way it should. However, throughout this nation's entire history, it is largely been ignored. If the Justices today are corrupt then all of the Justices have been corrupt.

And rights are granted in the Constitution. The VIth Amendment:



The VIth Amendment does indeed grant a host of rights.

Edit: It may be that no rights are granted in the Constitution before any of the Amendments were ratified. However, the Bill of Rights does grant rights and they were part of the same political movement as the Constitution itself.

He knows what he is saying is wrong. So does the administration.

A lawyer advises and counsels and argues for a client, and can quit if that client demands the unreasonable (that the law not be the law, that things not be as they are).

Hehe...I'm debating myself now:)

Commnon sense doesn't cover it. What Gonzales is saying is just plain nonsense.

Want to check to see if they included the Torture of Logic? Look at his words:

"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"


Isn't "Shall Not" an "assurance" when used in this context?

He get his Law Degree down at the local Sears?

He keeps saying no one has a right to HC, just that no one has a right to take anyone's HC rights away. But don't take that to mean everyone has a right to HC.

No one he believes GWB is above God.

Don't even address the fact that in order to suspend habeas corpus it would have to exist in the first place. Instead attempt to blur the facts by saying it doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus.

He's playing Constitutional twister and he can't quite reach right hand, red, that was called out without falling on his face.

Thanks for pointing that out.
.


I have never seen someone as smug and cocky as he is and I mean that to include people who might have a reason to be smug and cocky.

His only role appears to be one of being another spinster for their lies.

He's in a position of being beholden to Bush. He was first Bush's legal counsel while he was gov of Texas. Then he was elevated to the Texas SC, and when Bush's left for the WH Gonzo was allowed to tag along.

In the 12 years that he's been Bush's legal lackey he's suffered no consequences for his blind loyalty to the man, quite the opposite actually. This goes way beyond mere spin, I feel they believe they've become untouchable.

Laura Ingram and Rush Limbaugh going on the airwaves saying "He's absolutely right about this! Read the Constitution! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a person has the right of Habeus Corpus. I dare you to find those words!"

I can just hear one nimrod I'm familiar with saying, "Show me where in the Constitution is states there is a Right to Habeus Corpus! I dare you. You can't do it, can you? Ha!! Gotcha!"

Therein lies the danger of Conspeak.

... doesn't make it untrue (or true)!!!

but it doesn't say you have them. And if you don't have them in the first place, then of course we can't take them away. Yes, Senator, I'm pretty sure that's what the framers had in mind...

My God. That may be the looniest, most contorted misreading of the Consitution I've ever heard--and I've heard some doozies. These people have absolutely no interest in supporting or protecting democratic rule in this country. None.

Those bastards taught me that the Constitution did grant habeas corpus rights. But now that I've been enlightened by the esteemed Mr. Gonzales, I want my freakin' money back.


:sarcasm:

rereading it I didn't make that very clear. The rest of it was how the Constitution works in his world.

Between that jackass' comments about judges not having the power to check the President and his obvious attempt to completely ignore their holding, maybe the USSC will get a little more pro-active in telling BushCo to kiss their asses.

Granted, its unlikely that 3 of our SC justices will give a shit, but the rest of them can still be reasoned with to some degree. Even if it takes a personal attack (which is really what this amounts to) to get them off their asses.

Me too!
I want my law school tuition back from South Texas College of Law.
What would $20,000 in early 1980's dollars be worth now??
About $50K?

A right, as the framers used it, was something that has nothing to do with the constitution or the government. It is a right no matter what the law or the constitution says for that matter. That is why it never says "they have the right", because by calling it a "right" they acknowledge that they have it and always have.

So, the constitution just reinforces the rights by saying that they will not be tampered with.

Edit to add: I don't think that he misunderstands that. Therefore he is using this misconception as a tool to tamper with the rights.

Every shade of doubt, no matter how minute, insignificant, or inconsequential is slanted in favor of the elimination of the rights of the People.

away HC and so far I don't see open rebellion or invasion. So I guess that just leaves obvious criminal charges against the JD and the WH.

Gonzales is not misreading, misunderstanding or anything else. He is deliberately trying to push the legal envelope to take our rights away. It's not doing it because he's a poor little victim of the Bush admin and just "doing his job". He's evil. pure evil. He's there because he WANTS to be there.

very important point

Most of what they do and say is very deliberate.

I have to think about what he says.

.

a...a slur to...to...to someone, somewhere! Geez matcom, try and be more sensitive! :spank:

I have looked all around (CNN doesn't even have a story on any of the testimony on its website) but I think that C-Span is replaying the whole thing at 4 PM Eastern

http://www.c-span.org/

Right now. This man obviously violated his oath of office. He is not upholding the Constitution.

Dude should re-take elementary logic.

Let's call the whole thing off. Gobbledygook makes new headway into the legal profession. Oh and this reminds me of the hearsay/torture evidence ruling that came out today. What's the point? Let's just anoint them all powerful. It's the same damn thing. THE THINK WE ARE IDIOTS. Step up to the plate Dems, there ALREADY is a constitutional crisis. Isn't it obvious??????????

like when he used to present the petitions to Bush. Then Bush could say, "Thanks to Alberto's speed petition system, I was able to reject his appeal in a record three minutes!"

Fucking "moran." :wtf:

I'm looking forward to an informed legal opinion on that issue.

The Constitution specifically includes English common law procedure in Article One, 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."


You have to HAVE THE RIGHT in order for it to BE suspended. You can't then suspend something that isn't there. Why doesn't he just admit they are planning another war and attack in order to declare martial law? Why doesn't he just admit that it is he who is a traitor to that Constitution. Just spit it out already so we can then rid this government of them once and for all and put them in prison where they belong instead of spending all of this time giving them airtime! I'M SICK OF IT ALL ALREADY!

If I don't have it, you can't take it away from me, can you? No. Ipso facto, I have that right. Moron.

He has to be bullied into giving a "yes or no" answer. Most of the time his testimony is a combination of wasting valuable air and fascism.

The "No Loitering" sign does not mean "Do Not Loiter"; it merely means there HAS BEEN NO loitering up to that point in time.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But if the Government thinks it's being REASONABLE, Katie, bar the door! Also, re: warrants: No warrants without probable cause DOES NOT MEAN that warrants PER SE are required; just that WHEN USING THEM, also provide probable cause. We have decided not to use them, is all.

See how easy it is, kids?