• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gonzales: There Is No Constitutional Right To Habeas Corpus

Heh he gets called out on a stupid argument: "there's no explicit wirt of habeas corpus... the constitution merely states that the writ shall not be revoked".

To use his argument, the first amendment doesn't guaratee freedom of speech, it only states that right cannot be removed ("abridged").

Idiotic arguments like that is why Bush is backing out the NSA wiretaps - they know it's pure BS and they really have no legal way of defending it. In any case, we don't need sleezy crap like that in the white house.
 
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think all he meant was the Constitution doesn't specify exactly who has the right, he's not saying the right isn't a Constitutional right.

I think the Constitution refers to people in different ways in different places, sometimes "the people", sometimes citizens, maybe sometimes everyone.

I don't agree with him, but I think that's the basis for his statement, that "everyone" isn't explicitly stated, although since Habeas Corpus is an ancient principle that I believe always applied to everyone, his position doesn't make sense to me.

 
I dare a single 'conservative' or 'republican' to defend this jackass. Gonzales should be drug out behind a ghetto liquor store and shot in the liver, and left to die on some rotting rat-infested garbage. He is a traitor to every American citizen.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I dare a single 'conservative' or 'republican' to defend this jackass. Gonzales should be drug out behind a ghetto liquor store and shot in the liver, and left to die on some rotting rat-infested garbage. He is a traitor to every American citizen.
Click to expand...

The intresting thing is that he and his kind have been throwing people in jail for non-crimes (Income Tax) and doing the kinds of things to major advocates that the British did during the Revolution. The instruments may have changed but the principles are the same.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

The first part started a long time ago. The question is have they managed to delude the population well enough to avert the 2nd.
 
Originally posted by: Tom
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think all he meant was the Constitution doesn't specify exactly who has the right, he's not saying the right isn't a Constitutional right.

I think the Constitution refers to people in different ways in different places, sometimes "the people", sometimes citizens, maybe sometimes everyone.

I don't agree with him, but I think that's the basis for his statement, that "everyone" isn't explicitly stated, although since Habeas Corpus is an ancient principle that I believe always applied to everyone, his position doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

You're right. He's trying to argue the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law, which is more important for such a timeless document. Gonzales is an idiot.
 
These clowns are like four year olds in temperament and intellect. Clinton was a corporate statist fascist too but at least he was smart.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
These clowns are like four year olds in temperament and intellect. Clinton was a corporate statist fascist too but at least he was smart.
Click to expand...

Made him far more dangerous. Clinton practically stepped over dead bodies without anyone bating an eye while Bush stubbed his toe from the word "go".
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Zebo
These clowns are like four year olds in temperament and intellect. Clinton was a corporate statist fascist too but at least he was smart.
Click to expand...

Made him far more dangerous. Clinton practically stepped over dead bodies without anyone bating an eye while Bush stubbed his toe from the word "go".
Click to expand...

True I wonder what the reaction would be to Bush pulling a WACO, say at a muzzy home or anywhere. No I don't. media would be 24/7 for 12 months talking to every family member, teacher, person they ever knew of each person he killed. Congress would impeach etc. vs. burring Clintons assaults on civil liberties But at least he wasnt dumb enough to get us in tarbaby Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Zebo
These clowns are like four year olds in temperament and intellect. Clinton was a corporate statist fascist too but at least he was smart.
Click to expand...

Made him far more dangerous. Clinton practically stepped over dead bodies without anyone bating an eye while Bush stubbed his toe from the word "go".
Click to expand...

True I wonder what the reaction would be to Bush pulling a WACO, say at a muzzy home or anywhere. No I don't. media would be 24/7 for 12 months talking to every family member, teacher, person they ever knew of each person he killed. Congress would impeach etc. vs. burring Clintons assaults on civil liberties But at least he wasnt dumb enough to get us in tarbaby Iraq.
Click to expand...

You're acting like it's the fault of the media and a good percentage of the American public that they tend to notice when Bush does stupid stuff more so than with other Presidents. I think the explanation is pretty simple, Bush is totally artless at the stupid crap he does. Maybe the blunt approach works well for the six guys who still support him, I don't know. But it has the effect of making the bad things he does way more obvious and way more objectionable. Clinton was breaking the law and he hemmed and hawed and tried to dodge the issue. Bush was breaking the law and he just went around smacking everyone in the face with it. If people pay more attention to his blunders, it's because he is so STUPID when it comes to committing them.

And I'd just like to point out that it is not possible for you to sound like a more ignorant, bigoted redneck than you do when you use the term "muzzy". Are you 12 years old, or from Bugdick, Arkansas? I realize P&N is hardly high society, but I think we should have standards even here. Wouldn't you agree?
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I dare a single 'conservative' or 'republican' to defend this jackass. Gonzales should be drug out behind a ghetto liquor store and shot in the liver, and left to die on some rotting rat-infested garbage. He is a traitor to every American citizen.
Click to expand...

No, he shouldn't. He should be arrested, read his rights, and held in a civilized manner where he will NOT be tortured until he can be given access to a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. Because, the bullshit flowing from the White House aside, this is still America, where even law breaking jackasses deserve a fair trial. If "conservatives" have taught us anything, it's that you can't preserve your values by abandoning them when it seems convenient.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Zebo
These clowns are like four year olds in temperament and intellect. Clinton was a corporate statist fascist too but at least he was smart.
Click to expand...

Made him far more dangerous. Clinton practically stepped over dead bodies without anyone bating an eye while Bush stubbed his toe from the word "go".
Click to expand...

True I wonder what the reaction would be to Bush pulling a WACO, say at a muzzy home or anywhere. No I don't. media would be 24/7 for 12 months talking to every family member, teacher, person they ever knew of each person he killed. Congress would impeach etc. vs. burring Clintons assaults on civil liberties But at least he wasnt dumb enough to get us in tarbaby Iraq.
Click to expand...

You're acting like it's the fault of the media and a good percentage of the American public that they tend to notice when Bush does stupid stuff more so than with other Presidents. I think the explanation is pretty simple, Bush is totally artless at the stupid crap he does. Maybe the blunt approach works well for the six guys who still support him, I don't know. But it has the effect of making the bad things he does way more obvious and way more objectionable. Clinton was breaking the law and he hemmed and hawed and tried to dodge the issue. Bush was breaking the law and he just went around smacking everyone in the face with it. If people pay more attention to his blunders, it's because he is so STUPID when it comes to committing them.

And I'd just like to point out that it is not possible for you to sound like a more ignorant, bigoted redneck than you do when you use the term "muzzy". Are you 12 years old, or from Bugdick, Arkansas? I realize P&N is hardly high society, but I think we should have standards even here. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Well "Fundi" was already taken and known as Christains the likes of Pat Robertson and Muzzy, or Muzzi if you prefer, rhymes phonetically and ideologically with Fundi so it makes perfect sense, to me at least. Funny I never heard you complain when I use Fundis are you a Muzzy? Or do you find both "ignorant, bigoted redneck" speak and just forgot to speak up before on my Fundis use?

 
Originally posted by: Tom
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think all he meant was the Constitution doesn't specify exactly who has the right, he's not saying the right isn't a Constitutional right.

I think the Constitution refers to people in different ways in different places, sometimes "the people", sometimes citizens, maybe sometimes everyone.

I don't agree with him, but I think that's the basis for his statement, that "everyone" isn't explicitly stated, although since Habeas Corpus is an ancient principle that I believe always applied to everyone, his position doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Give him the benefit of the doubt???

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution:

?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.?

As to giving him the "benefit of the doubt", isn't that the whole idea of our legal system, innocent until proven guilty? And isn't that what Gonzales and Bush have been fighting against? They want the right to surveil and lock up people without any cause.

 
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Tom
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think all he meant was the Constitution doesn't specify exactly who has the right, he's not saying the right isn't a Constitutional right.

I think the Constitution refers to people in different ways in different places, sometimes "the people", sometimes citizens, maybe sometimes everyone.

I don't agree with him, but I think that's the basis for his statement, that "everyone" isn't explicitly stated, although since Habeas Corpus is an ancient principle that I believe always applied to everyone, his position doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Give him the benefit of the doubt???

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution:

?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.?

As to giving him the "benefit of the doubt", isn't that the whole idea of our legal system, innocent until proven guilty? And isn't that what Gonzales and Bush have been fighting against? They want the right to surveil and lock up people without any cause.
Click to expand...


I meant the benefit of the doubt as to what he meant to say, not about his interpretation of the Constitution.

My opinion is there's a certain amount of leeway in the immediate aftermath of an event like 9/11, but it's wrong to try to narrowly define constitutional rights to increase the authority of the government, I want leaders who do the opposite.

 
This guy was hired and promoted within the administration precisely because of these far out, strained interpretations of the law.

It's really scary when you think how close he probably came to being on the Supreme Court.
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
Cue the University student banner!

EDIT: here it is
Click to expand...
The kids holding the banner are so brave that they have to hide their faces under hoods.
Nice.

I am sure their wonderful college professors are filling their heads with ideas about the 'glory' days of Vietnam.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aelius
Cue the University student banner!

EDIT: here it is
Click to expand...
The kids holding the banner are so brave that they have to hide their faces under hoods.
Nice.

I am sure their wonderful college professors are filling their heads with ideas about the 'glory' days of Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could help get them sent to Gitmo for this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top