Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
2,062
Location
Austria, in the heart of Europe
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.

Read more here.
 
Werbung:
Dear God I can't believe he said that. I'm completely and one hundred percent floored. I mean...wow. Damn. I'm at a total loss for words.

I'm thinking it might be a nice idea to amend the Constitution, right now, to fully and explicitly state that every American citizen has the right of habeas corpus. While Senator Specter's logic was solid and and I'm in no way validating what Gonzales said, I think we should take every possible step to condemn rhetoric like that, and adding to Bill of Rights in the midst of a scandal like this one would be about as strong a statement as there is.
 
A quick search on "habeas corpus + Gonzalez" yielded several stories on line about this statement.

I like to check these things out, since there are some blogs out there that will print anything. It seems that this story is real.:eek:

Next question: Why is Gonzalez in trouble for firing people who serve at the pleasure of the administration and can, therefore be fired for any reason, instead of coming under fire for this outrageous questioning of our civil liberties?

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Too few are willing to pay the price any more.:(
 
you know people, he still has the support of the president of these blessed us of a

and that's all that matters.
 
Oh wait - I got it. Sorry, thought you meant "us" and "a" as the actual words. When I said I didn't know what you were talking about it was because I couldn't decipher your sentence.

Could we maybe stop throwing the whole "you're uneducated" thing around? Or at least require everyone to post their maximum attained grade level and any undergraduate and graduate degrees attained.

Back to the topic: When you say "that's all that matters," what do you mean? You're new here and in order to get a more complete idea of your views you're going to have to be a bit more specific than that.
 
sorry, i got a diagnosed case of the slowhands

when i say that's all that matters is that right now, gwb is the only one who can pull the plug on Al . and he doesn't want to.

and what is the congress going to do to either of them? what can they do?

do you want to have a degree off, bring it on... i went to heald
 
Basically what i see you saying is the Shrub Holds the Full House..........and everyone else has sh^t.
therefore the Shrub Wins

am i correct Mr U.?
 
Next question: Why is Gonzalez in trouble for firing people who serve at the pleasure of the administration and can, therefore be fired for any reason, instead of coming under fire for this outrageous questioning of our civil liberties?
You said a mouthful there. Attorneys who serve the justice department in the capacity those 8 did can be fired at will. It's been that way for a long time, and Gonzalez isn't the first who did it.

On its face, this seems to be a pure power ploy. "We demand the right to keep people who don't agree with you working in your office. And if you don't like that, you're anti-democracy!" At least, that's how it comes across to me.

Now, as for Gonzalez and habeus corpus, you'd think someone so well educated as to split the legal hair that the constitution makes no explicit mention of habeus corpus would also be educated well enough to be versed in the founding father's concept of natural rights...those rights that they considered to be inherent rights of all men, rights that existed before the constitution and that the constitution neither granted nor could take away, no matter how it was worded. Among these would be the right to due process, and in their minds any notion of due process necessarily included habeus corpus.

As his opponents pounce on any real or perceived flaw in their aim to "win" at any cost, so does Gonzalez seek to further the administration's aims at any cost. The only way to make us safe from terrorists is to kill or detain them, or at the very least deter them (and given that many of them are fanatics, the deterrent had better be quite strong!) Now, by that logic, anything that stands in the way of detaining terrorists puts us all at risk. Given the tradeoff between legal protections for the accused and crumbling towers burying thousands of innocents, it's not hard to see how someone like Gonzalez would perceive the possiblity that a terrorist could use something like habeus to "get off on a technicality" as a problem to be solved. And his solution is to chip away at those inconvenient protections that the accused have in any free society.

What I find distubing is that if he's so shortsighted that he'll split the hair of habeus vs. the literal text of the constitution, then I have every reason to suspect that he's also so shortsighted as to be unable to distinguish that the reason for protecting this country against Al Queda is so that there can be a bastion of freedom and justice somewhere in the world for us all to enjoy.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Too few are willing to pay the price any more.:(
And that, sadly, is why there are more people "playing the game" to have Gonzalez fired then there are who are frightened at the prospect of the Attorney General working tirelessly to diminish the liberty of free men.
 
Werbung:
Did I hear you say "Fair Trial?" :) Are you kidding? As for Gonzalez, leave it to Bush to appoint a hispanic to the office of AG. Bush is in a state of illusion. He thinks that by appointing Condalisa Rice ,he is going to draw the miniority vote.And likewise with Gonzales . He thinks he is going to draw the hispanic vote. Wake up George ! Voting for a Replublician is not in both camps,and it never will be!
 
Back
Top