Habeas corpus again

[lederhosen]

Via mdsteele47:

From today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, emphasis added:

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.

Let me repeat that: Gonzales, the Attorney-General of the USA, does not believe the Constitution actually guarantees habeas corpus, even to US citizens.

Comments

[polydad.livejournal.com]

I regret that me and my shinai are not in your vicinity; that much anger isn't good for you, and chasing each other around the house (around the *outside* of the house) with sticks is a good way to burn it off.

Yeah, Gonzales is a fascist asshole; look who appointed him. And no, the Dumbocrats won't have the balls to indict him; the question is whether *we'll* have the guts to go after *them* for playing along with the fascists. I don't think we will. Not sure whether that's a bad thing or not; still stewing.

best,

Joel

[ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com]

I think the Supreme Court just might have a thing or two to say about that, Mr. Gonzales.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

One would certainly hope so, but note that Gonzales previously served on the Texas Supreme Court (no prizes for guessing who nominated him to that role), so my faith in courts is not quite 100% here.

[harliquinn.livejournal.com]

We just can't win, can we??

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I see.

So his position is that if your constitution says 'the right of the people to do X shall not be infringed', you can get around it by taking the right away entirely. Then it isn't there for you to infringe it.

Ugh. x.x

[mdsteele47.livejournal.com]

And for the bonus round, from today's session, Gonzo weighs in on being under oath:

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: Do you think that whether a witness is sworn or not makes a difference in what their obligations are when they're the witness before a congressional hearing?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, it certainly wouldn't matter to me in terms of the answer that I would provide.

...and later...

RUSS FEINGOLD: Why did you decide to seek FISA Court authorization in the Spring of 2005, and not earlier? Did this relate in any way to the administration learning that the New York Times was looking into the program?

ALBERTO GONZALES: (pause) No. Ummm, not at all.

RUSS FEINGOLD: Why didn't you seek the authorization earlier?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, we certainly would not have been prepared to be in a position to make any kind of application. I must tell you, and I want to go back and think about this in terms of, I'm fairly certain, but again I'm under oath so I want to be careful how I say this.

[culfinriel.livejournal.com]

That final quote (if quote it is) is one of the most brilliant pieces of off-the-cuff verbal misdirection, tap-dancing and general nonsense I have ever seen. Please tell me the next line in this dialogue was someone calling him on it.

[culfinriel.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee a right to stupidity, either; but he's still here. Not to make an unfounded emotional statement lacking a logical reasoning structure, or anything.