http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

"On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.
As such, the law could be extended to US citizens and held if left unchecked."

I thought that last bit was rather interesting.

Thoughts?

He is an idiot.

Thread...done.

Next Question...

he also hates America

now it's done

His reasoning defies logic, violates the fundamental principles we've held dear since the Revolution, and says something very frightening about the games this administration is willing to play to avoid court oversight of its anti-terrorism activities.

...to NWO.:eek:

His reasoning defies logic, violates the fundamental principles we've held dear since the Revolution, and says something very frightening about the games this administration is willing to play to avoid court oversight of its anti-terrorism activities.

Goes back alot farther than that to me...1215 clauses 36, 38, 39, and 40.

I don't see how he can say that it's not expressly guaranteed....

"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."

That sounds like an express guarantee to me.


And this guy is our AG. Yeah. An idiot and a traitor.

I don't see how he can say that it's not expressly guaranteed....

"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."

That sounds like an express guarantee to me.


And this guy is our AG. Yeah. An idiot and a traitor.

I agree. Its almost like saying 'women dont have the right to vote' or 'we're going back to the days of slavery'

How can such comments be allowed?

fyi: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=83918

I agree. Its almost like saying 'women dont have the right to vote' or 'we're going back to the days of slavery'

How can such comments be allowed?


I think it comes down to "if you say something enough, it must be true."

This could be the weekend to have few sidecars. :)

there were no Honduran Death Squads. So he has a history of being a real 'stand-up' guy.

speaking of denial did anyone see the Cons in Japan are wanting to retract the apologies for the forced sex slavery and rape of Korean and Chinese women? They are saying it never happened though there is written records and surviving soldiers admitting to it.
Conservatives everywhere, ya gotta love their consistency.

I guess the Constitution doesn't really create rights of free expression, free speech, or freedom to worship. I mean, it just bars Congress from enacting laws which abridge those rights, but doesn't ACTUALLY create the rights.

Or so would go Gonzalez's logic, I guess, analogous to his habeas corpus theory.

The Constitution doesn't expressly say we need an Attorney General, either. But I'm sure he would abandon his strange logic to argue the point.

Gonzales is a weasel and glorified shoeshine boy for the ruling elite.

I guess the Constitution doesn't really create rights of free expression, free speech, or freedom to worship. I mean, it just bars Congress from enacting laws which abridge those rights, but doesn't ACTUALLY create the rights.

Or so would go Gonzalez's logic, I guess, analogous to his habeas corpus theory.

No, the constitution doesn't create them, it guarantees them. We are born with those rights as free people. The wording addressing Habeus Corpus seems to indicate that it can be suspended and is therefore not a guaranteed right, it is conditional.

No, the constitution doesn't create them, it guarantees them. We are born with those rights as free people. The wording addressing Habeus Corpus seems to indicate that it can be suspended and is therefore not a guaranteed right, it is conditional.

And the conditions are clearly defined: Invasion or rebellion.


I also don't see how the Executive branch can suspend it, legally.

And the conditions are clearly defined: Invasion or rebellion.


I also don't see how the Executive branch can suspend it, legally.

Justice Taney concurs...:D

.......... violates the fundamental principles we've held dear since the Revolution,

Habeas corpus was not invented by the founding fathers. Its history in English law is much older.

BTW is there not a precident for its suspension when US citizens of Japanese origin were rounded up during WWII??

Your reasoning would be new to the courts, and most lawyers. To suggest that those rights existed in the absence of the First Ten Amendments is a novel thought indeed, since you can bet that the right to criticize the crown, for example, most definitely did not exist in British common law.

But I suppose it is all a "how many angels dance on the head of a pin" thing.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that habeus corpus was an American invention. Your colonial pride can remain intact.

The writ of habeus corpus was not suspended during the Japanese internment. Those detentions were subject to judicial review. The tragedy was that the review was unsuccessful (See Korematsu v. US). But at least there was review and judicial oversight, which is a hell of a lot more than we're providing Gitmo detainees.

Your reasoning would be new to the courts, and most lawyers. To suggest that those rights existed in the absence of the First Ten Amendments is a novel thought indeed, since you can bet that the right to criticize the crown, for example, most definitely did not exist in British common law.

But I suppose it is all a "how many angels dance on the head of a pin" thing.

Yes, dancing angels and all that rot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

"On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.
As such, the law could be extended to US citizens and held if left unchecked."

I thought that last bit was rather interesting.

Thoughts?

If by "last bit" you mean the last sentence, my thoughts would be that this is one of those topics where it's best to stay away from the wikipedia. It's too recent and politicized of a topic.

The wiki author states that the law could be extended and applied to U.S. citizens without saying how that might happen.

I guess the Constitution doesn't really create rights of free expression, free speech, or freedom to worship. I mean, it just bars Congress from enacting laws which abridge those rights, but doesn't ACTUALLY create the rights.

Or so would go Gonzalez's logic, I guess, analogous to his habeas corpus theory.


My question is about the meaning of "suspend". I think it means that it can't be temporarily set aside for everyone, regardless of circumstances. Like declaring martial law.

But everyone seems to be using it to say that Congress can't specify situations where it doesn't apply. As in this case, only for alien enemy combatants.

Which is the right usage?

I guess that's the debate, but I think to say that it can't be "suspended" but can still be "set aside" with regard to certain classes of people is not consistent with any principle of constitutional construction I know of.

When you construe the constitution, the rights of the people are supposed to be construed broadly and language allowing restrictions of rights is supposed to be construed narrowly. Nor should the end result be illogical, which I think the current administration's approach results in illogical outcomes. And the enemy combatants language of course only muddies the equation because there's no question that the writ of habeus corpus does not apply to POWs or other detained members of an opposing army, etc., but the folks behing labeled "enemy combatants" here are a much broader category than that, and include Americans.

I guess that's the debate, but I think to say that it can't be "suspended" but can still be "set aside" with regard to certain classes of people is not consistent with any principle of constitutional construction I know of.


Don't we already define or restrict (to some extent) who HC applies to?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00002241----000-.html

§ 2241. Power to grant writ


(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless—
(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
(4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
(5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial.




When you construe the constitution, the rights of the people are supposed to be construed broadly and language allowing restrictions of rights is supposed to be construed narrowly. Nor should the end result be illogical, which I think the current administration's approach results in illogical outcomes. And the enemy combatants language of course only muddies the equation because there's no question that the writ of habeus corpus does not apply to POWs or other detained members of an opposing army, etc., but the folks behing labeled "enemy combatants" here are a much broader category than that, and include Americans.

While it's true that citizens can be found to be unlawful enemy combatants, the recent military tribunals bill only applies to alien UECs. The restrictions on HC (found in the military tribunals bill) doesn't apply to U.S. citizens.

I don't see how he can say that it's not expressly guaranteed....

"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."

That sounds like an express guarantee to me.


And this guy is our AG. Yeah. An idiot and a traitor.

No he's not an idiot, a scumbag and a traitor, absolutely. I see how he can say it? His training manual is 1984. I hope everyone knows these pieces of sh.t will say anything and do anything.