Your Attorney General

[Rex Kickass]

The White House counsel who once called the Geneva Convention "quaint" said the following this week while testifying before Congress.

 

The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

 

The Attorney General of the United States is responsible for enforcing the laws and constitution of the United States.

[southsider2k5]

The White House counsel who once called the Geneva Convention "quaint" said the following this week while testifying before Congress.

The Attorney General of the United States is responsible for enforcing the laws and constitution of the United States.

 

What is this in reference too? What is the context of the quote?

[Balta1701]

What is this in reference too? What is the context of the quote?

From an unofficial transcript, so the text could be slightly off:

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?

 

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.

[HuskyCaucasian]

So, since the right exists, but doesn't say to who, it's really not a real law. Interesting logic....

[NorthSideSox72]

What is this in reference too? What is the context of the quote?

While I'd be curious about that too, I am having trouble seeing what possible context could make that quote acceptable. Its a little scary to me, in fact. This AG and our previous one have both been pretty off their rockers.

[Balta1701]

Ah, Here we go, with video.

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

 

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

 

SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.

 

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.

 

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

 

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.

 

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

 

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —

 

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

 

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

 

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

 

GONZALES: Um.

[southsider2k5]

While I'd be curious about that too, I am having trouble seeing what possible context could make that quote acceptable. Its a little scary to me, in fact. This AG and our previous one have both been pretty off their rockers.

 

I could see it in reference to non-citizens (illegals), but that is about it.

[NorthSideSox72]

I could see it in reference to non-citizens (illegals), but that is about it.

His quote said citizen.

 

In any case, now with context, it reads to me like the AG is (as usual) more interested in arguing on behalf of political policy than actually interpereting and enforcing the law. The AG should not be a shill for the President.

[Balta1701]

His quote said citizen.

 

In any case, now with context, it reads to me like the AG is (as usual) more interested in arguing on behalf of political policy than actually interpereting and enforcing the law. The AG should not be a shill for the President.

The AG shouldn't be one, but just running through my head, I'm having difficulty remembering any AG in recent years who hasn't gone out of their way to try to protect the President. Am I wrong in that?

[southsider2k5]

The AG shouldn't be one, but just running through my head, I'm having difficulty remembering any AG in recent years who hasn't gone out of their way to try to protect the President. Am I wrong in that?

 

Not at all. And that goes back a LONG way.

[Jenksismyhero]

The way I read this is similiar to how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade.

 

You don't have the RIGHT TO ABORT your child, you have the RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM the government telling you that you can't. A subtle distinction no doubt, but it proved to be VERY important in the context of the Roe v Wade logic (essentially they didn't want to keep creating laundry lists of rights you have, but instead wanted an easier way to rule on the cases by talking about what the government can/can't do).

 

I'd imagine Gonzalez is attempting to create the same subtle distinction here so as not to accept that everyone has the right to habeas corpus, only that there are situations in which the government can/can't suspend it.

[Damen]

The way I read this is similiar to how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade.

 

You don't have the RIGHT TO ABORT your child, you have the RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM the government telling you that you can't. A subtle distinction no doubt, but it proved to be VERY important in the context of the Roe v Wade logic (essentially they didn't want to keep creating laundry lists of rights you have, but instead wanted an easier way to rule on the cases by talking about what the government can/can't do).

 

I'd imagine Gonzalez is attempting to create the same subtle distinction here so as not to accept that everyone has the right to habeas corpus, only that there are situations in which the government can/can't suspend it.

 

I don't know how you can equate abortion and habeas corpus, since abortion is, obviously, not mentioned specifically in the constitution, where Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution says this:

 

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 don't quite how you can pull Gonzales's interpretation out of that. There's no wiggle room there. Removing the two exceptions, because Gonzales is clearly not making that argument, you've got this statement.

 

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended.

 

That's it. There's no debate over implied rights or any thing else that is up for legitimate argument. He is saying that what's written in the constitution isn't really there. When it says 'Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended', it doesn't really mean that. Its absolutely outrageous for the top law enforcement official in the land to make such a mangled joke out of one of the basic principles founding our country.