Attorney General Gonzales is correct, because he is referring to all United States citizen, who live in the several states as RESIDENTS, and have contracted with Congress for priviliges and benefits. That makes United States citizens SUBJECT to Congress, and removes all inalienable rights. Richard John Perna wrote:
FOLLOW UP TO Attorney General Gonzales claim that we have no right of habeas corpus.
What is really fascinating about the Attorney General Gonzales position is the revealing look that it gives into his mind set. There is no specific "grant" of habeas corpus in the constitution, because inalienable rights are not given to us by government. Our founding fathers did not believe government "grants" rights. Instead, they knew that our inalienable rights are given to us by our Creator. Our founding fathers enumerated rights in our constitution, because they wanted government to PROTECT those inalienable rights, that are given to us by our Creator.
The Gonzales opinion is a demonstration of the totalitarian worldview of the evil men who currently infest the White House: Gonzales is saying that unless the Constitution explicitly grants all citizens a right, these rights can be taken away by the President. Thus, there is no right to freedom of speech, religion or assembly because there is, to use the Gonzales language: The constitution does not say that every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby "granted" or assured the right to free speech. After all, the Constitution's First Amendment simply says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't grant a right; all it says is that congress can't abridge it. So in the view of Gonzales, that leaves the President and the courts free to do whatever they want in taking away those our rights.
These evil men need to be impeached. THEN after that, we should perform a fumigation and an exorcism at the White House.
Why are we not surprised that our Attorney General Gonzales dares to attempt to usurp such a sacred constitutional right as habeas corpus? The constitution has been trampled to death. Do we still remember the words "Congress shall pass no law..."? How about the words "...shall not be infringed"? What part of "...shall not be infringed" do they not understand? How about "reasonable" searches that do not require a search warrant? How about the "accused will enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"? Do we remember when we all knew the constitution prevented the taking of private land to be given to a developer? Our government has made a joke out of the constitution.
If you think any branch of the federal government feels restricted in any way by the constitution, think again. They only pull it out and pretend it's still in effect to accuse the their opposition of violating it.
It is CHILLING that the Attorney General is the top lawyer of the land. YET, he shouldn't even be a US citizen. He is a the descendant of illegal aliens. Being an "anchor baby", he benefited from the wrongful interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Now he feels he is free to wrongfully interpret the habeas corpus clause.
Visit: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22anchor+baby%22+%22Attorney+General+Gonzales%22&btnG=Search
The impeachment of a non-citizen enemy of our constitution should be a "given".
The oath of office; to which Alberto Gonzales swore, was: "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC..."
Alberto Gonzales has violated his oath of office. Alberto Gonzales should not only be impeached for his willfully obtuse interpretations of the Constitution, and the violation of his oath of office, he should be disbarred. Gonzales is at the center of Bush's crimes, including authorizing torture and illegal wiretapping. Is it any wonder that Gonzales allowed the imprisonment of border agents Ramos and Compean? Gonzales is acts as an agent for Mexican illegal aliens.
Follow up articles: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53711
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000890.html H.R. 698 to eliminate anchor baby citizenship H.R. 698 is a bill to deny citizenship to U.S.-born babies of illegal aliens
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2447.shtml A Bold Remedy to a Grave Threat
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3639.shtml
Call YOUR Congressman at 866 340-9281 1-800-833-6354 1-877-762-8762 1-866-808-0065 1-888-355-3588 1-866-220-0044 NOW!
Call THE President at 202 456-1111 NOW!
----------original message------------------- 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 Constitution: "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 doesn’t 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; 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.
While Gonzales’s 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 don’t 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 Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t 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 Constitution’s 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 Gonzales’s Jan. 18 statement suggests that he is still seeking reasons to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to President George W. Bush’s executive powers that Bush’s 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 Bush’s 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 Bush’s 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 can’t file a motion with a court, he can’t 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 detainee’s 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 doesn’t 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