Attorney General Gonzales claims there is no right of habeas corpus. We need a NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL WATCH THE ACTUAL VIDEO HERE: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/ Yesterday, (Jan. 18, 2007) during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. "
Specter pushed back. "Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?" Specter told Gonzales, "You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General." As McJoan noted, the right of habeas corpus is clear in 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." Full transcript: SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees aliens in Guantanamo after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus when there's an express constitutional provision that it can't be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees. GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you're referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas. SPECTER: Well, you're not right about that. It's plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution. GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn't mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas. SPECTER: When did you last read the case? GONZALES: It has been a while, but I'll be happy to I will go back and look at it. SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again. GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. 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 SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion? GONZALES: 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 SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General. GONZALES: Um. ========================== http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus By Robert Parry January 19, 2007 In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American. Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesnt explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended. There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; theres a prohibition against taking it away, Gonzales said. Gonzaless remark left Specter, the committees ranking Republican, stammering. Wait a minute, Specter interjected. The Constitution says you cant take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesnt that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless theres a rebellion or invasion? Gonzales continued, The Constitution doesnt say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesnt 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. While Gonzaless statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also dont exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative. For instance, the First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Applying Gonzaless reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesnt explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights. Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that 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. The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial. That Attorney General Gonzales would express such an extraordinary opinion, doubting the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, suggests either a sophomoric mind or an unwillingness to respect this well-established right, one that the Founders considered so important that they embedded it in the original text of the Constitution. Other cherished rights including freedom of religion and speech were added later in the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitutions granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment, which reads: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. Bush's Powers Gonzaless Jan. 18 statement suggests that he is still seeking reasons to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to President George W. Bushs executive powers that Bushs neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during a time of war, even one as vaguely defined as the war on terror which may last forever. In the final weeks of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Bush administration pushed through the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that effectively eliminated habeas corpus for non-citizens, including legal resident aliens. Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an unlawful enemy combatant and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals kangaroo courts because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution. Some language in the new law also suggests that any person, presumably including American citizens, could be swept up into indefinite detention if they are suspected of having aided and abetted terrorists. Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission, according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006. Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission may direct. Who has an allegiance or duty to the United States if not an American citizen? That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens. This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens. Besides allowing any person to be swallowed up by Bushs system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bushs tribunal process to play out. The law states that once a person is detained, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions. That court-stripping provision barring any claim or cause of action whatsoever would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person cant file a motion with a court, he cant assert any constitutional rights, including habeas corpus. Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on cruel and unusual punishment would seem to be beyond a detainees reach as well. Special Rules Under the new law, the military judge may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte or one-sided communications from the prosecutor or a government representative. The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it possesses sufficient probative value and the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable. During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a national security privilege that could stop the examination of any witness, presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter. In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel star chamber system for the prosecution, imprisonment and possible execution of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic. Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called unlawful enemy combatants, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for any person American citizen or otherwise who crosses some ill-defined line. There are a multitude of reasons to think that Bush and advisers will interpret every legal ambiguity in the new law in their favor, thus granting Bush the broadest possible powers over people he identifies as enemies. As further evidence of that, the American people now know that Attorney General Gonzales doesnt even believe that the Constitution grants them habeas corpus rights to a fair trial. ------------- Follow up articles: http://www.juniorg-manaward.com/watch.php http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1903.shtml --------------------------------- Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
