I Got Yer Habeas Corpus Right Here ...

[Lemur]

I haven't seen a thread on this yet, so I'll go right ahead. Apparently the Bush administration does not believe that the right of habeas corpus is a given in the U.S.A., because the Constitution spells it out negatively. In other words, the Constitution says that habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in very specific circumstances, but it never says "and this means that habeas corpus is a right."

A bit convoluted, no? And what does this mean for the other rights which are declared in the negative? The First Amendment is riddled with 'em. Are those all not-quite-rights as well? Very strange stuff.

From the article:

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “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.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

[Xiahou]

Why do you hate freedom (and Abraham Lincoln)?

[Papewaio]

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

Vote Specter for Moderator of the Backroom!

[Fisherking]

From the article:

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “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.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

Now just what is it about Lawyers that allows them to cast common sense to the winds.

We as a nation were much better served when we used Common Law as the Basies of our legail system, rather than Admiralty Law. And why did such a thing ever happen, likely because we elect too many lawyers to office.

Stop with the Universal Health Care and give us Universal Legal Assistance…make all of them GS5s and take the money out of it. We would be back to Common Law in a fortnight.

[doc_bean]

The rights specified in the first amendment (or the bill of rights in general) were seen as 'natural' rights at the time, and thus everyone would have that right.

[yesdachi]

I like what Specter said but common sense and the legal system don’t often intersect.

I guess it is not the end of the world if Gonzales questions it, there is nothing wrong with questioning the system but doesn’t he have anything better to do than try to find loopholes for the president? This is one of the reasons it is so very important to have good judges on the bench.

I really don’t mind eliminating habeas corpus for non-citizens during war time but questioning our “implied” rights set in the constitution is un-American. Knock-Knock anyone home? This is not popular with the voters, hello… anyone? Sees crowd of democrats waving from the sidelines “don’t worry, we’ll be in charge soon” Slaps forehead in frustration.

[Don Corleone]

Sadly, I'm cynical enough these days not to be surprised. Good find, Lemur. I hadn't heard boo about this.

It strikes me as ironic (and humorous, in a twisted sort of way) that Gonzalez's logic of 'prohibiting a conscription of a right does not mean the right exists' hearkens back to Bill Clinton's famous "it depends on what the defintion of 'is' is".

I'm becoming more and more afraid of both parties every day. Democrats at least have the courage of their convictions to admit that they don't support individual liberty, that they believe the needs of society dominate over the needs of the individuals. But Republicans, at least according to their public statements, are supposed to believe in limited government, not "Everything we can get away with, and then some".

I'll say this much: If it's a question of voting for the autocrats that admit they're autorcats but claim they're doing it for society's own good, or ones that outright lie and engage in Orwellian thoughtspeech of how this really an expansion of personal liberties, I'll have to hold my nose and go with the former.

Is it just me, or are there no options left?

[doc_bean]

Is it just me, or are there no options left?

Vote: Nader

[Rameusb5]

Vote: Vader/Sideous in 2008

They'll sweep aside the old republic and the regional governors will have direct control over the colonies. Fear will keep the local systems in line!


Mwaaaahaaaahaaa!

[Samurai Waki]

I think it's high time we sacked our government and installed a new one. Where the President and Cabinet basically have a good 60-90% of their previous rights revoked.

[lancelot]

Vote: Vader/Sideous in 2008

They'll sweep aside the old republic and the regional governors will have direct control over the colonies. Fear will keep the local systems in line!


Mwaaaahaaaahaaa!

Here here!