See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Can I be Jailed Under the Patriot Act for Criticizing Bush on the Internet?
Source:
libertypost.
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=173643&Disp=16#C16
Published: Jan 21, 2007
Author: Iforgetwhopostedit
Post Date: 2007-01-21 11:56:28 by Itisa1mosttoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 307
Comments: 23
Can I be Jailed Under the Patriot Act for Criticizing Bush on the Internet? Sorry: This Article does not exist!
It either does not yet exist, or has been deleted!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#8. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
Comment from Andrew Sullivan's blog today: The Gonzales statements on habeas during that hearing started me on a slow burn. On one level, he is engaged in Dickensian lawyering. He didn't say a thing that couldn't be backed up. Indeed, on a very technical level, looking at every word he uttered, his statements about the Rasul case (this is the case they talk about without naming) are arguably more accurate than Specter's - the technical holding, from a stare decisis perspective - does not rest on constitutional norms. But go back and look at Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address: he says very clearly that habeas is one of the basic premises of our entire system of government; that it's a fundamental right that shores up all the others. Elsewhere he identifies habeas as one of the "four pillars" of our constitutional system. You're not going to convince me that the Founding Fathers didn't view habeas as "grandfathered" into the US system - that's simply obvious. So why are we now being subjected to this Stalinist historical revisionism? Why does the Attorney General of the United States make comments like this in such a public forum? He would only make them because he needs them for cover, i.e., because he has advocated and implemented a consistent policy of violating habeas corpus rights that rests on each of these niggling distinctions. Which is why one should stop scrutinizing the footnotes of law review articles and be worried. This also reveals a fundamental Gonzales deceit. We shouldn't forget that back in the first weeks after 9/11 when concerns were being raised about tactics, he held up habeas corpus very prominently. Don't worry about overreaching, he said, anything we do will be subject to habeas corpus challenge. From his Nov. 30, 2001 op ed in the NYT: He repeated this in a series of interviews and public appearances, always the same thing: don't worry, habeas will provide the cure. (Of course, the weasels over at DOJ will say this applies to the empty set, they will say no one is "arrested, detained or tried in the United States," since all those proceedings will be in Cuba!)
At last the Senate made fun of Alien Gonzales. http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=909 Our sitting attorney general is the living embodiment of that old phrase “the banality of evil.” The smirky twerp of an AG is quietly trying to set back 800 years of of Anglo-Saxon and American legal tradition. Check out this exchange about our constitutional right of habeas corpus, which is an inheritance from the Magna Carta of 1215. But as far as Gonzales is concerned, everyone’s been misreading the Constitution since its ratification in 1789: “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.” “You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said. Freeper reaction... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770290/posts?page=9
He's right. Specter's wrong. The privilege of the writ predates the written Constitution. A Constitution, and the lawyers and executive branch functionaries charged with obeying it, either traduce or respect the privilege, but the privilege does not come from the Constitution. The same is true of other rights. If they come from any place, they come from our constitution (small c), or our Creator, if you prefer. A Constitution articulates a sense of the order of a society, but it our constitution that determines whether that articulation is empty or quickened.
I'll take your word for it T, and frankly it wouldn't make a difference if the writ were chisled in stone and brought down from the Mount. These fascist swine are god-like in their own mind. I pray they aren't bullet proof too.
There are no replies to Comment # 16. End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"anyone arrested, detained or tried in the United States by a military commission will be able to challenge the lawfulness of the commission's jurisdiction through a habeas corpus proceeding in a federal court."
#9. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, Itisa1mosttoolate, HOUNDDAWG (#8)
(Edited)
#15. To: robin, Jethro Tull (#9)
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.”
#16. To: Tauzero (#15)
Replies to Comment # 16.