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:
"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."
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!)
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, everyones been misreading the Constitution since its ratification in 1789:
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.
You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense, Specter said.
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.
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.
Torture boy is trying to justify the lack of due process for all the Gitmo detainees, and of course, any future American citizens thrown in prison for whatever.
You don't really believe that Americans do not have the right to habeas corpus do you? Alien Gonzales is twisting words and logic to try to say we do not.
Alien Gonzales is twisting words and logic to try to say we do not.
But the points he's most elastic on are war and insurrection. What Specter would agree with him on in many other areas is the idea that failure to enumerate a right means we don't got it.
Ain't neither of these guys being consistent.
Clearly we'd be better off without those exceptions of war and insurrection to the limitation of power, with even stronger language in the limitation than "suspended", e.g. "shall not be infringed."
Or maybe not. The words say what the rulers say the do, unless the people correct them.