It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A.G. Gonzales: Constitution Doesn't Guarantee Habeas Corpus

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
To be honest here I am almost at a loss for words, as the story asserts this have given us an insight about how Gonzales viewes the rights of not only "enemy combatants" but as actual citizens of the U.S. He asserts that the fundemental right we enjoy to challange onse imprisonment is not guarenteed is apalling. He insisted on this even after being pressed by Senator Arlen Spector despite years of prescidence. :shk:

Makes it clear its his view that ANY OF US could be held in his mind citizen or no without ever being charged.




One of the Bush administration's most far-reaching assertions of government power was revealed quietly last week when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that habeas corpus -- the right to go to federal court and challenge one's imprisonment -- is not protected by the Constitution.

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

habeas corpus




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
so basically he's saying the constitution doesn't give us any rights, it just prevents laws being made that would explicitly take away those rights???




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
he is tryiing to set the up the doubt and the argument..so the govt can do what it wants. why else would he bring up this subject?? i find it very disturbing that a person in his position is fighting against the constitution and basic rights...but this will get little more than a "huh" from the america sheeple...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Gee Fred....
WHo appointed this extremist?
Its almost....and I hate to say it....but its almost nazi-like, isnt it?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
he is tryiing to set the up the doubt and the argument..so the govt can do what it wants. why else would he bring up this subject??


You forget that Gonzales was one of the "lawyers" that decided that "enemy combatants" did not have any rights. It seems he feels none of us do as well


www.atsnn.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
LMAO!!!!

Methinks Gonzalez forgot to actually read the constitution, specifically the 6th Amendment.



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; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.


Now if that doesn't specifically guarantee every citizen "due process," nothing does. These kind of comments should scare the beejeezus out of everyone and the media should be all over this and calling for Gonzalez's head.


B.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I was one of those that debated the implication of Gonzales on the re definition of Geneva convention Bush style.

He was the one that push the enemy combatant new term, he also help with the Guantanamo regulations for the enemies and I bet he also have a say so on the patriot act as a confidant to Bush.

For a man that his illegal immigrant family came to our nation to get a better life for him so he can become whatever he wanted . . . he is nothing more than a danger our nation and traitor to our constitution.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
These kind of comments should scare the beejeezus out of everyone and the media should be all over this and calling for Gonzalez's head.



No seriously, who appointed this nazi?

I agree that this should scare the beejeezus out of everyone, but the media should be all over this? Why is it the job of the media to call for Gonzos head?

Seriously, ask yourself, who appointed this nazi? Where does the buck stop?
Gonzos words are treasonous, but the real issue here is
WHO APPOINTED THIS NAZI?
Because truth be told, whoever got him his job is the real problem.

Who is that?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Letters in the mail to my congressman and senator!!!


These poor excuses for human beings think they can do whatever they want.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Alberto Gonzales is a pimp for the Mexican Government Immigration policy. Do you notice the illegal immigrants have more rights than US citizens.

Meanwhile Nero (Buch) fidles while Rome (USA) burns!




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
They need the USA to burn down so they can have TOTAL control, so long as one person has the ability to fight back they have a problem. Right now they want to turn everyone against each other, turn Americans against Mexicans, Mexicans against Americans. They do this by putting more emphasis and more "15 seconds of fame" type reports on the extremists on both sides. If you TRUELY wanted to find an extremist, you would find one in EVERY society, and probably EVERY town in the world no matter how small (other than the 1 person towns wich are a joke, I have seen them myself...) and if you push those few hard enough it makes it look as if the whole of the society is evil and corrupt. Most Mexicans are more than likely NOT the crazed illegals the media would like us to believe, the problem is the part of their society that IS extremist.
Gonzales is just a middleman for what is and will be. What is and will be can be changed though, however time is running out before more "drastic" measures must be taken.
The constitution is the last thing to stand in their way (legally) at this point, soon as it is removed, the sooner they can step up their plans ten fold, Gonzales is there for this expressed purpose.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
in a way he's right, it's not granted to ALL americans, just those that are criminally prosecuted.......

I guess he thinks that if they drag US citizens in using the "War on Terror" bit, then these citizens don't fall under the criminally prosecuted bit...who knows...
what is going on within the heads of our gov't officials...but...

this is scary....that "war on terror" bit could be used as an excuse for just about anyone...and well, once used....they don't even have to present the evidence that there's a connection between the person, and terrorism..

if Bush's and Cheney's approval rating hits 0, do they automatically get impeached at least?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   
The Constitution says "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."

So I guess he is right, an enemy combantant (regardless of citizenship) would be exempt from the right of habeas corpus.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Well he is Right and that is peachy for terrorist or tagged enemy combatants.

But look at the bill to get on the minute men, that means that they can lose their habeas corpus for protecting our soil.

funny how the term terrorist or Terrorist intentions can be manipulated and abuse to target American citizens no related to terrorism as an attack to our soil to cause harm.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
No, Gonzales is not right, and IMO, he should be reprimanded, by removing him from the position of Attorney General. He obviously has no understanding of the basic concepts of American's Rights, let alone the Constitution... which is the "Supreme Law" of the United States.



Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Constitution says "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."

So I guess he is right, an enemy combantant (regardless of citizenship) would be exempt from the right of habeas corpus.


Read a bit more, people. The Judicial Branch has no jurisdiction to take away someone's rights to habeas corpus.

Read it and weep.


Habeas Corpus: Congressional and Judicial Control.—Although the writ of habeas corpus231 has a special status because its suspension is forbidden, except in narrow circumstances, by Article I. Sec. 9, cl. 2, nowhere in the Constitution is the power to issue the writ vested in the federal courts. Could it be that despite the suspension clause restriction Congress could suspend de facto the writ simply by declining to authorize its issuance? Is a statute needed to make the writ available or does the right to habeas corpus stem by implication from the suspension clause or from the grant of judicial power without need of a statute?232 Since Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Ex parte Bollman,233 it has been generally accepted that “the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law.”234 The suspension clause, Marshall explained, was an “injunction,” an “obligation” to provide “efficient means by which this great constitutional privilege should receive life and activity; for if the means be not in existence, the privilege itself would be lost, although no law for its suspension should be enacted.”235 And so it has been under[p.639]stood since,236 with a few judicial voices raised to suggest that what Congress could not do directly it could not do by omission,237 but inasmuch as statutory authority has always existed authorizing the federal courts to grant the relief they deemed necessary under habeas corpus the Court has never had to face the question.238
source


It expressively states in the Constitution that habeas corpus has a special status, because its suspension is forbidden... and further more.... and most importantly (which would put the proverbial smack down on Gonzales)... nowhere in the Constitution is the power to issue the writ vested in the federal courts.

So Gonzales can go.... well, you come up with your own conclusions.

[edit on 1/25/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I really think you must have no idea what you're talking about Infoholic since that quote you gave has nothing to do with the real issue here.


[edit on 1/25/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Good catch, Infoholic.


You know that Senator Leary already warned Gonzales in 2006 in a confrontation that he had with him about the law.

While Gonzales defended the controversial spying on American citizens he told Gonzales that no man was above the law.

Gonzales just smiled, funny that the bad seed was already planted.

Senator Leary went on Gonzales last week about the Syrian-Canadian man that was taken because his name was in the US listing of terrorist and torture by Syria to be released later and clear on any terrorist link by the Canadian Government, but US refused to clear him because the worry of problaby law sues.

This time Gonzales was actually out of words to explain what went wrong.

I think the congress needs to put Gonzales in a cage because obviously he actually think he can manipulate the law and re write it.




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Constitution says "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."

So I guess he is right, an enemy combantant (regardless of citizenship) would be exempt from the right of habeas corpus.


This may be what he meant; I don't think--at least I hope--that he wouldn't be claiming that the constitution does not guarantee a right to habeus corpus. He may have meant that because the writ can be suspended that it's not guaranteed, or he may have meant that because the writ is mentioned nowhere in the constitution other than that clause the right is one of judicial invention, but this one seems spurious to me. Habeus corpus most likely was enshrined in the common law for the citizens of the Crown and therefore an inherent right given back to the peope under amendment X.

Also, the due process clauses of Amendments VI and XIV do not deal with habeus corpus; they deal with other procedural rights.

[edit on 1/25/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I really think you must have no idea what you're talking about Infoholic since that quote you gave has nothing to do with the real issue here.


[edit on 1/25/2007 by djohnsto77]


Oh really?

Explain then, how can the Federal Courts take something away that they don't even have the power to grant?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Oh really?

Explain then, how can the Federal Courts take something away that they don't even have the power to grant?


The Courts are practically the only government entities that issue any writs, by definition. The only major exception is Congressional subpoenas.

The writ of Habeus Corpus is a demand issued by the court to command the government to inform an individual they have in custody what the charges against them and what evidence they have.

The Constitution says this right of prisoners can't be suspended unless "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

The source you quoted really is just an academic discussion of constitutional law, noting the apparant inconsistency that the constitution doesn't allow Congress to suspend habeus corpus, but never explicitly says they have to grant it by law.

[edit on 1/25/2007 by djohnsto77]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join