ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
One of you people so upset about what Gonzales said do me a favor and find one news story about this exchange from a non-biased web site.
I searched for information on this and all I can find is lots and lots of posts on partisan web sites like dailykos and thinkprogress etc but nothing from the New York Times, or Washington Post etc.
If this is such a big deal then why didn?t any of the mainstream media write about it?
Please explain that little detail to me.
Just so you know there are stories about Gonzales going before the committee, but none of them mention this exchange. Obviously these new sources don?t think it was such a big deal.
BTW: can anyone find the FULL transcript, not the one that ends with Gonzales saying? um
I would like to see what he said afterwards to see if he tried to explain what he was saying here.
I searched for information on this and all I can find is lots and lots of posts on partisan web sites like dailykos and thinkprogress etc but nothing from the New York Times, or Washington Post etc.
If this is such a big deal then why didn?t any of the mainstream media write about it?
Please explain that little detail to me.
Just so you know there are stories about Gonzales going before the committee, but none of them mention this exchange. Obviously these new sources don?t think it was such a big deal.
BTW: can anyone find the FULL transcript, not the one that ends with Gonzales saying? um
I would like to see what he said afterwards to see if he tried to explain what he was saying here.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Finally, just for the hell of it?
What the Constitution says:
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
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.
What Gonzales said:
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
And
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 ?
Technically what Gonzales said is right, the Constitution does not say ?you have the right to habeas corpus? it just says that right cannot be taken away. Again, I would like to see further clarification as to what Gonzales meant.
What the Constitution says:
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
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.
What Gonzales said:
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
And
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 ?
Technically what Gonzales said is right, the Constitution does not say ?you have the right to habeas corpus? it just says that right cannot be taken away. Again, I would like to see further clarification as to what Gonzales meant.
I guess I didn't notice your use of the word "fundy" before, but it hardly seems like the same thing. "Fundy" means fundamentalist Christians, nothing in the word suggests it applies to all Christians. "Muzzy", on the other hand, is way more like "Jesus freak" or something similar, and if you were going around using THAT term when you talk about Christians, I'd object just as strongly.
In any case, being a bigoted jackass towards Christians worries me less than similar behavior directed towards Muslims. For all the unfounded animosity that is directed at Christians in this country, nobody is talking about rounding them up and putting them in camps...I wish I could say the same thing about how Muslims are treated. Yes, anti-Christian language is bigoted, but it's just words...I think all the anti-Muslim talk in this country is the tip of something much more dangerous. I'm not a Muslim, but I think that the vast majority of Muslims who have done nothing wrong need people to stand up for them. When that DOESN'T happen, we could end up going down a very unfortunate road.
Perhaps your anti-Muslim words are just that, words, and you certainly are an equal opportunity offender. But you'll forgive me if I don't see anything quite so benign. I hope I'm wrong about where the anti-Muslim agenda in this country is going, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time in history bigoted hysteria got out of hand.
There's a video with a transcript below it. What more do you need? ANd why do you blindly follow Bush? The guy is arguing the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law. Tell me, which is more important for such a timeless document?
Habeas is not a right but a default rule rather easily dispensed with-- is that it undermines the very purpose of the Great Writ, both in the United States, and in Great Britain, where it originated:
The possibility that the King could dispense with the rule of law and throw individuals in prison because he regarded them an enemy of the state is the very reason why we have a writ of habeas corpus. Substitute "George W. Bush" for "King" and you are rapidly approaching the Administration's desired position.
It's important to note that the suspension clause is not only a limit on the President; it is also a limit on Congress. It prevents a Congress, docilely subservient to a demagogue, or charismatic politician, or even the leader of the majority party going into contested elections-- from using fear and paranoia to suspend habeas for political gain. Instead, Congress may give the President the power withheld to Kings only if there is proof of rebellion or invasion, *and* the public safety requires it.
I had thought that these ideas were too obvious to note. Apparently they are not:
ambitious politicians, eager to eliminate all obstacles to their power, seem always to forget them, or at least pretend to.
And so it has come to this-- we must remind Attorney General Gonzales that he is the nation's chief law enforcement officer, and that the basic rights underlying our legal system can not be so easily dismissed.
The possibility that the King could dispense with the rule of law and throw individuals in prison because he regarded them an enemy of the state is the very reason why we have a writ of habeas corpus. Substitute "George W. Bush" for "King" and you are rapidly approaching the Administration's desired position.
It's important to note that the suspension clause is not only a limit on the President; it is also a limit on Congress. It prevents a Congress, docilely subservient to a demagogue, or charismatic politician, or even the leader of the majority party going into contested elections-- from using fear and paranoia to suspend habeas for political gain. Instead, Congress may give the President the power withheld to Kings only if there is proof of rebellion or invasion, *and* the public safety requires it.
I had thought that these ideas were too obvious to note. Apparently they are not:
ambitious politicians, eager to eliminate all obstacles to their power, seem always to forget them, or at least pretend to.
And so it has come to this-- we must remind Attorney General Gonzales that he is the nation's chief law enforcement officer, and that the basic rights underlying our legal system can not be so easily dismissed.
ProfJohn said
Hard to say what he "meant", the fuzzy truthiness gets in the way...
Gonzales said "The Constitution does not say that every citizen has the right to habeas corpus." This is not the same as saying that habeas corpus is not an "absolute constitutional right." What the constitution says is that freedom from the suspension of habeas corpus is an absolute constitutional right except "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Habeas corpus is a well-established principle of Anglo-American common law since AD 1215). The constitution does not define common law. Britain does not even have a written constitution, but try taking habeas corpus away from the brits and listen to the outcry.
Similarly, the constitution does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. It merely says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So listen up for when they come to take your guns and tell you that the right to keep and bear arms is not an "absolute constitutional right."
Similarly, the constitution does not guarantee the separation of church and state. It merely says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So watch out when they come to force you to convert to Christianity and pay 10% of your income to the church and tell you that separation of church and state or freedom of religion is not an "absolute constitutional right."
Similarly, the constitution does not guarantee the right to life, liberty, and property. It merely says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. So be aware when they come at three o'clock in the morning and drag you and your family out of your house for secretly practicing a relition other than Christianity and burn or bulldoze your house while you watch and then line you up against the nearest wall and tell you as they are tying the blindfold on that life, liberty, and property is not an "absolute constitutional right."
History -- mistakes -- repeat
Hard to say what he "meant", the fuzzy truthiness gets in the way...
Gonzales said "The Constitution does not say that every citizen has the right to habeas corpus." This is not the same as saying that habeas corpus is not an "absolute constitutional right." What the constitution says is that freedom from the suspension of habeas corpus is an absolute constitutional right except "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Habeas corpus is a well-established principle of Anglo-American common law since AD 1215). The constitution does not define common law. Britain does not even have a written constitution, but try taking habeas corpus away from the brits and listen to the outcry.
Similarly, the constitution does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. It merely says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So listen up for when they come to take your guns and tell you that the right to keep and bear arms is not an "absolute constitutional right."
Similarly, the constitution does not guarantee the separation of church and state. It merely says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So watch out when they come to force you to convert to Christianity and pay 10% of your income to the church and tell you that separation of church and state or freedom of religion is not an "absolute constitutional right."
Similarly, the constitution does not guarantee the right to life, liberty, and property. It merely says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. So be aware when they come at three o'clock in the morning and drag you and your family out of your house for secretly practicing a relition other than Christianity and burn or bulldoze your house while you watch and then line you up against the nearest wall and tell you as they are tying the blindfold on that life, liberty, and property is not an "absolute constitutional right."
History -- mistakes -- repeat
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Instead of attacking me personally why don?t one of you attempt to dispute what I said?
If I am wrong that wouldn?t be hard to do right?
Narmer, I went to C-Span and found the full video. Unfortunately after the part that is on the link Lehey interrupts and goes on a tangent about Habeas Corpus and how he objects to the law congress passed etc.
ProfJohn,
whats to despute? you have gone so far in your bag of excuses that you have no chance of going back up for a long time
whats to despute? you have gone so far in your bag of excuses that you have no chance of going back up for a long time
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,599
- 19
- 81
Just take him to one of the secret prisons that the administration created. We don't have to worry about charging him with anything, or giving him a lawyer. He's an enemy combatant, because he clearly opposes the principles of our Constitution. That's all we need to lock him up indefinitely, right?
They seem to think they have something to be afraid of.... and they would be correct.
When Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Charles "Cully" Stimson goes beyond threats to advocating reprisals against law firms that dare stand up to the administration, you have to wonder what goes on in the minds of these people.
Just because the Pentagon forced him to give a piss poor apology and let him keep his job is not a case of someone acting on their own and getting their hands slapped but more likely an idiot, in a long line of idiots, who let slip what the establishment seemed to have been thinking all along. The only thing he is sorry for is getting caught.
Seems to me that the only person that need fill their heads with "glory" is Benjamin Franklin.
Oh and don't mistake glory for self respect. Unlike some people they didn't loose theirs.
Saying that the rights cannot be taken away implies that every citizen has the right to habeas corpus. If Gonzales believed this he wouldn't have wasted his time distinguishing between the two in the first place, so we can only conclude that he does not believe in the right of habeas corpus.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,567
- 6
- 81
If Gonzales is right then no American has habeas corpus rights. By his reasoning, any classification of American citizen not specified in the Constitution to have habeas corpus rights DOESN'T have habeas corpus rights. Thus, since the Constitution doesn't list ANY class of American having or not having habeas corpus rights (it doesn't say, for example, "law abiding citizens" or "men" or "those not suspected of treason"), then under Gonzales any of us can be locked up - with no legal recourse - at the say-so of our leaders.
Under Gonzales, our rights aren't guaranteed by the Constitution. Rather, they exist only at the disgression of our leaders. Naturally, those leaders will always act with benevolence and restraint. In the hallucinogenic world of Gonzales, power doesn't corrupt.
I've wondered for a long time why George Ashcroft resigned when he did. I'd like to believe it's because he realized just how outrageous the positions he was being asked to advocate were.
Under Gonzales, our rights aren't guaranteed by the Constitution. Rather, they exist only at the disgression of our leaders. Naturally, those leaders will always act with benevolence and restraint. In the hallucinogenic world of Gonzales, power doesn't corrupt.
I've wondered for a long time why George Ashcroft resigned when he did. I'd like to believe it's because he realized just how outrageous the positions he was being asked to advocate were.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Only and equal opportunity offender to people who have it coming and Muslims certainly do 1) for their "radicals" actions 2) for their "moderates"silence.
Hatred and bigotry has nothing to do with it. It is not a manifestation of hatred to want to defend oneself against forces that have declared explicitly many times that they are dedicated to our destruction. And it certainly has nothing to do with hating people who don't worship the way we do as other sanctimonious blowhards put forth. Ever noticed that no one, save Muslims in India/Thailand/Indonesia/Malaysia, etc., seem to be filled with Buddhismophobia, or Hinduphobia? Might that be connected to the fact that Buddhists and Hindus haven't flown any planes into any buildings among thousands of other horrific acts these past few years and justified that action by means of their religious texts? Think about it.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,561
- 4
- 0
What most un-educated don't realize is that the concept of Habeas Corpus has been one of the foundations of common law since 1305. It was so pervasive and accepted a sprincipal that EVERYONE assumed it was part of the Constitution and in fact was a right under every American under English law.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 0
Well what he said he's correct, but lacks logic. Basically he got cornered in a debate and used a really stpuid argument (think NSA-wiretap-justification stupid) to try get himself
out.
The constitution explicitly states that priviledge of Habeas Corpus cannot be taken away - this in itself implies that people priviledged under consitution (US citizens) are entitled to HC.
Doesn't the Constitution say something about the rights not given to the government goto the people. So I assume that means we have the right to habeas corpus as well as others without them being stated explicitly in the constitution. Further, it just goes against logic (which is nothing new for this administration I know) to say that you can't be denied the right to something if you don't already have it. Also, I noticed that PJ has yet to respond to the points brought up by BMW540I6speed.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter