Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’
Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’
Yesterday, 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.” Watch it:
As McJoan noted, the right of habeas corpus is clear in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: “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.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
386 Responses to “Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
is there nothing that will cause americans to wake up and smell hitler?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:42 amhave some with your morning coffee!
Oy. What a frickin' doofus.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:44 amLook at the guy behind Gonzo. Is that a "D'oh!!" moment, or what?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:45 amThis guy got his law degree in a Crackerjack box. He and Bush and Cheney HAVE TO GO!
January 19th, 2007 at 10:45 amImpeach this son of a bitch. How can he protect our Constitution if he doesn't know what the words mean?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:46 amLet me supply their twisted rebuttal.
Habeas Corpus is a Priviledge, not a Right... you know, like health care.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am[...] If politicking year around is the only way to get bums like Attorney General Gonzales out of office, then I would do it. In committee yesterday, he asserted that the Constitution does not grant the write of Habeas Corpus. Senator Specter doesn’t let him get away with it. Well, at least not much. 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 — [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 10:49 amThe rove/cheney/bush "The President is King" approach to administration is a direct challenge to the Constitution. It is now up to Congress to protect us and the Constitution from these non-evolved clowns. It is certain that the more they are challenged, the more their basis for their actions will be exposed as illogical, irrational, and illegal.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:50 amOhhhh, I see, it was never there to begin with. The government has just been real nice for the last 200 some odd years. I see.
I'm glad Gonzo cleared that up.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:51 amHabeas Corpus is a Priviledge, not a Right… you know, like health care.
Yeah, they have us there. I mean the distinction between a priviledge and a right is plainly defined in the dictionary of "common sense" and "tradition" the reich-wingers love to beat us over the head with...
January 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am"You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense,"
Well I have no idea if he was treading on his interdiction, as I have never heard that word, but he for sure is violating common sense.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am...
WoW. That man, the Attorney General, is seriously scary.
It begs the question: Who else has he denied rights to on the basis of his F.Uped Logic???
"There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution"??
Other than “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.†he means.
Guess that explains why they denied Jose Padilla (who may be guilty as Sin, but deserves his day in Court!) his right in the US...
January 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amIt's individuals like Alberto Gonzales who give lawyers a bad reputation. I think american bar association should work on higher standards for lawyers. Specifically, integrity.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amDamn! We are showcasing Alberto Gonzales as our top lawyer of the land. Then again, we have George Bush as President. No wonder world thinks americans are stupid and obnoxious.
He should be disbarred.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:54 amWhat an idiot. He should be punched in the face JUST for even try to defend that for 4+ years dozens of people have been detained without having access to a lawyer or to a fair trial...mofo.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:54 amGonzo sounds like a teen trying to rationalize his way out of trouble when he's about to severely punished.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:55 amThe founding fathers designed the constitution to protect us from people like Gonzales, Cheney and Bush.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:56 amThese guys will do anything just to be able to torture humans.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:57 amin·ter·dict (Än'tÉ™r-dÄkt') Pronunciation Key
To prohibit or place under an ecclesiastical or legal sanction.
To forbid or debar, especially authoritatively. See Synonyms at forbid.
To cut or destroy (a line of communication) by firepower so as to halt an enemy's advance.
To confront and halt the activities, advance, or entry of: "the role of the FBI in interdicting spies attempting to pass US secrets to the Soviet Union" (Christian Science Monitor).
I had to look it up, Yikes.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am:)
Linked with a tangible policy instituted by Gonzales, that is grounds for Impeachment of his office and further, disbarment.
Here is a Daily Kos comment from a lawyer that gives some info on filing complaints.
::::::
January 19th, 2007 at 10:59 amlast night on olberman, some guy (sorry) said that gonzo was acting
January 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am"more general than attorney"...
where DID he get his law degree?
where DID he get his law degree?
Comment by katy
I would say that in the Mossad.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:06 amThis bozo is the Attorney General?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:08 amGood damn thing the chymp didn't nominate him for the SCOTUS.
Impeach his dufoid ass!
File a complaint against Gonzales with the State Bar of Texas, the only state where he is licensed.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:09 amWe're just overreacting. It'll take years for this to affect white people.
/sarcasm.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:09 amF*ck it, they can lock me up, torture me, kill me. It won't change my mind.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:10 amWords do not express how shocked I am at “Attorney General†Gonzales’ statement. I am starting to question if this guy is even a lawyer. I mean I hear you can get your “Law Degree†from Offsore-Laywer.lie or some other place on the internets. This passive dismissal of a fundamental right such as habeas corpus freaks me the hell out. Clearly this guy does not even know the basics of the law he is sworn to protect.
Using his logic we as Americans have no rights at all, because you can’t assume that you have it, even if you are told it can not be taken away.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 amOK...one could make an excellent case that, with this one statement, Gonzales has broken his oath to uphold the Constitution, and is revealed as a traitor to this country.
Never mind all the other shit he's done, this alone is grounds for impeachment.
When Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, etc. are all up against the wall Gonzales needs to be right there beside them.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 amThese people are absolutely terrifying. Given the chance, there is no civil liberty they will not upend, thinking that they're defending the right people and punishing the wrong people. The precedents they set - if they're allowed to set them - will end America as we know it. Is it possible to impeach an entire administration?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 amIn the Bush administration, failure is not an option! It's a job requirement!
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am"The founding fathers designed the constitution to protect us from people like Gonzales, Cheney and Bush.
Comment by nineteen84 —
And Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz and Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and Douglas Feith and Lewis "Scooter" Libby and John Bolton and Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan and Michael Ledeen and William Kristol and Frank Gaffney Jr.
And if you want to know why
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am"GONZALES: Um."
I think that says it all right there.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:12 amGONZALES: Um.
The smartest thing the man said in the whole exchange.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:13 amMAN I really don't like that guy Gonzalez
January 19th, 2007 at 11:14 amIsn't he a lawyer? Can't you be disbarred for this?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:14 amGonzo has NO common sense and Specter knows that. He's a finger puppet for the Bush Administration. Even as an off-the-street attorney, he's non impressive but to imagine that he is the Attorney General of this country is utterly appalling. He's not well spoken in common discourse; he's ill educated on basic constitutional law and he makes a total "doofus" of himself when asked questions in public. Guess he suffers from the same affliction as Dubya....when he opens his mouth, everyone cringes because they fear what idiocy may spew forward.....that's why Gonzo and Bushco make great bedfellows! They're totally in sync with their level of being out of synch with the rest of the world.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:17 amHow come the main job of the Attorney General whose job it is to pursue major crimes and legal challenges on behalf of the American people has been demoted to a full time Bush defense attorney. Is there a way to remove him for dereliction of duty somehow?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:18 amHow can anyone defend this shite?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:18 am#32
January 19th, 2007 at 11:19 amkelso......nice timing. :)
Isn’t he a lawyer? Can’t you be disbarred for this?
Comment by bnye
Probably not, unless they find out what else he's done...
But it's really embarrassing for him, so let's keep talking about it. :)
January 19th, 2007 at 11:19 amWhat an f***ing, lying a**hole. Prison can't come soon enough for this traitor.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:20 amthat’s why Gonzo and Bushco make great bedfellows! Comment by veritas
Please do not put that visual into my head.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:20 am:P
At least Gonzales is consistent. You have to be extremely careful how you phrase things with him, or he will dodge the question, or come up with some unintended meaning.
And the conservatives used to complain about Clinton and the meaning of "is".
That'd be a geat debate. Clinton versus Gonzales. Of course we'd all have to stay awake, which would be a challenge.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:21 amHe meant we have no right to Harry's Core-puss, or Hades' Corpuscle.
Listen more closely.
I see a thread in the future, it is about Gonzo's backpeddling on this issue. He will say we heard him wrong.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:21 am... Offsore-Laywer.lie ...
Comment by Marq — January 19, 2007 @ 11:11 am
heh... thanks... i needed that...
January 19th, 2007 at 11:21 amDoes anyone recall Gonzo's famous idiotic answers during his nomination hearings? I guess the same miasma of disbelief clouded everyone's thought processes just as this same dark, dank cloud permeates anything that Dubya does - which keeps people in denial about whom we've got representing us these days. DENIAL is not just a river in Egypt...it's alive and well in that quickly diminishing percentage of individuals who still support this corrupt regime....most of that percentage are the corporate crooks who are filling their coffers in siding with Bushco....the others are totally in denial about what this country is all about and what we have rapidly become....the epitome of a "non democracy" parading as a "democracy".....we are THE QUINTESSENTIAL CONTRADICTION.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:21 amVerbalKint sez:
Don't traitors generally get the death penalty?
(That's right, Gonzales, I called you a traitor.)
January 19th, 2007 at 11:23 amOne word... TREASON
January 19th, 2007 at 11:25 amHoly Crap!!!! He took speech lessons from Rumsfeld. I believe this falls into the catagory of Known unknown. That is it was known that the AG would pull a rabbit out of his ass but it was unknown what color the rabbit would be.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:27 amYeah, well I'm anti-death penalty. But if I favored the death penalty, I judge that dozens of people in the Bush administration have earned it. I will settle for life in prison without parole.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:27 amThis is simply and totally amazing. And as scary as anything I've heard from "our" government, if it is still indeed ours.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:31 amThese guys, our supposed elected representitives, use George Orwell's 1984 as a political guide.
The republicans have totally lost any and all of my support, they have amply demonstrated their vision of America is a totalitarian nightmare.
and little old arlen specter sneaked in a provision to give abu gonzalez authority to fire u.s. attorneys and appoint his own little quizlings...
sorry, arlen, but your showboating yesterday doesn't begin to absolve you. scumbag.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:31 amThis is a continuation of the ongoing executive branch power grab.
Gonzales is implying that "some people" don't qualify for constitutional protection. These people can simply be placed in the "enemy combatant category and made to disappear down a black hole.
How do you know if you're an "enemy combatant?"
If the president (or any of his minions) says you are. That's all it takes these days.
Gonzales and the justice dept. are going out of their way to keep these cases out of court, just like the Padilla situation. The last thing they want is a courtroom confrontation over the constitutionality of their activities, as they probably realize that they are, in actuality, breaking the law, in a very severe sense. They are breaking their oaths to uphold the constitution.
Their power grabs continue -- even ones we probably don't even know about, yet.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am#50, yeah, me too, but I also used to think that prison road gangs were a bad idea.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:33 amNot so sure anymore.
Now that's not a bad visual, AlbertoVO5, chymp and Darth, out there a swingin their scythes, singin acapella
"Oh, Lord, how low we go..."
As a mandate against corruption "within", this Congress has an obligation to the american people to INVESTIGATE, INDICT, AND INCARCERATE all the criminals and perpetrators of "high crimes & misdemeanors"...this means lying to support a case for war, illegal spying on american citizens, torture of suspected terrorists, and just about everything else this guy has done wrong. It seems we've become pretty callous regarding our own democracy while spinning the support of democracy in Iraq! It seems we've become very amoral when we force a president into resignation (with imminent impeachment proceedings - ala Nixon) for wiretapping a political headquarters (Watergate) and impeach another (Clinton) for an office dalliance.....
Where is the morality of this country when officials are breaking the laws we must abide by right in our faces? Where is the shock that should be at the fore to hear such nonsensical statements, spin, and talking points being paraded as "truth" when it's clearly and overtly total "propaganda". Where is the call for truth in reporting these days? Where is the anger at treason in the intentional "outing" of a covert intelligence agent which was done because her husband found evidence which contradicted the lies and spin of this administration in the run up to the war?
Have we as a nation decended to such depths? Have we as a nation traded our "civil rights" for a promise of "security". Jefferson said that when man trades his civil rights for a promise of security, he will have neither - civil rights nor security. Prima facie evidence of this is our perpetually open borders while the Bush puppets spout of empty rhetoric about us being "secure". Have we become Bushbot non-thinking, illogical idiots to accept this toxic drivel?
We all need to take a long hard look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves just how much more "complicit" we are going to allow ourselves to become? Just how much more of our rights will we trade for the lies about being secure? How much more of our democracy are we going to stand by as it crumbles to the ground? Do we even still have a true, valid democracy? I think not.
If one reads "THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY" regarding the presidential excesses of the Nixon era, it's clearly evident just how far this administration has usurped the power of the people. It's a "must read". We've falled so very far......so very far in a mere 6 years....it's a very sad awareness.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:33 amWell, the Constitution doesn't say "Lying under oath is a high crime or misdemeanor" either, but damn if the Republicans didn't come close to throwing out a sitting President for equating one with the other.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amWhen Arlen Specter was the head of the judiciary committee, he greased the wheels for Gonzo. Wiretapping? No problemo! You want to fire US Attorneys and appoint your political hacks without Senate approval? Piece of cake, I'll just secretly slip it into this bill when no one is looking. You're right Alberto, we don't need no oversight here and your confirmation will be a breeze!
Specter acting like he's appalled that Gonzo would say there's no right to habeas corpus is just that, an act. Specter and anyone else who's been paying attention has known that Bush and Gonzo believe that the Constitution is advisory only. Dictators don't need no stinkin' Constitution.
Specter has been the enabler in chief for 5 years. It was during his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee that the destruction of the Constitution has taken place. He can't blame Gonzo. He let Bush do whatever he wanted. What did Specter do about Gitmo and habeas corpus when he led the Judiciary Comm.? Not a goddamn thing! What did he do about warrantless wiretaps? Squat! Specter is pathetic. Only now is he outraged because he knows the Dems will cover his pathetic, wrinkled ass. Too bad he sold his balls to Bush a long time ago.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amSo where are the so-called conservatives on this? Do true conservatives even exist, or were they always a myth? Are they in hiding somewhere? Obviously the incompatibility between conservatism and the Republican party is nearing 100%.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amHow, exactly, is the priveledge of Habeas Corpus supposed to exist if government doesn't actively grant it?
He seems to believe the Constitution simply says government can't take Habeas Corpus away -- as though it could exist independent of government action. That runs counter to its very definition. It's absurd.
This guy has gotten so used to splitting hairs that he assumes he can do so when there's no hair to be split. He must think he's the intellectual equivalent of Rogaine.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:35 amCertainly hard labor would be an appropriate penalty for Bush, since he has never had to engage in it before.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:36 amAnd Arlan Specter is a phoney....who talks the talk but never walks the talk! He should be the poster child for "doubletalk and hypocrisy". Be very suspicious when you hear Arlan posturing against his party - it's his windbag of bullcrap from one of the oldest airbags in Congress. He thinks the people don't realize what he's all about. He has zero credibility for truth; in fact, his little "specter show" preceeds just about every smoothing over of the ruffled feathers of this cavalier, capricious administration....check it out....almost like clockwork. They pull out their "Clockwork Orange Arlan" and wind him up to do his dirtywork.
Arlan Specter fools no one; in fact, he was part of the Kennedy coverup and that will be his real legacy. He learned from the dispicable how to panhandle truth a long, long time ago. He needs to be soon retired from Congress because he's totally out of touch and out of step with most americans. Time to wave bye-bye, Arlan, and put yourself out to pasture as a fraudulent "has been"!
January 19th, 2007 at 11:38 amHope the NRA is ready to turn over their guns. There's no express right to gun ownership in the constitution. It just says we can't make a law infringing on that right, ya know, assuming it exists, which it may or may not.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:39 amLet's press Congress for an investigation into Arlan Specter. He seems to be the enabler of this corrupt administration and someone needs to trace his steps back to JFK to see where this guy really functions....I fear it's in the sewer of the republican party. ARLAN, THE ENABLER.....NEEDS TO GO!
January 19th, 2007 at 11:40 amComment by Dick (no, not that one) — January 19, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Excellent commentary. May I use it in a fax to Arlen's office in Washington?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:40 amMAN I really don’t like that guy Gonzalez
Comment by mc — January 19, 2007 @ 11:14 am
mc - I agree! For one thing, he seems to enjoy himself far too much while he masters the art of stonewalling and mis-interpreting the Constitution!
January 19th, 2007 at 11:44 am"You may be violating common sense"
Can you believe how stupid the AG must think people are?
He makes a completely frivolous and non-existent distinction when he says...
"‘There is no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution... there's a prohibition against taking it away"
That's not a matter of opinion, or even a case of reasonable minds differing...
There's no real distinction to be made there...
And yet the guy intentionally, knowingly, tries to bamboozle his auditors as though he had just made a real distinction...
...and he does the exact same thing earlier, when he makes a distinction between the "statutory" right of habeas corpus, versus the "Constitutional" right of the same.
This stuff isn't accidental, or even a matter of opinion...
...it's some guy thinking he's talking to morons, and that he can talk right over their heads, and then laugh about how he bamboozled them by making a non-existent distinction.
"There's no express grant to free speech, just a prohibition against taking it away... and there is no statutory prohibition against taking away free speech, just a Constitutional one."
January 19th, 2007 at 11:44 amWC,
January 19th, 2007 at 11:48 amSure, go right ahead. When Arlen had a chance to actually do something for the country, he hid. He is as despicable as Bush and Gonzalez because when push came to shove, he always sided with evil. He may feel bad now about being on his knees servicing Bush for 5 years, but I don't think he has a shread of conscience. He just knows that he's got to get on the other side now.
This is why we should own guns. Tyranny will forever be at our door - we should be waiting on the other side with a rifle.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:50 amComment by RUCerious — January 19, 2007 @ 11:33 am
I just want to hear each of them say, "I'm shakin' it, boss!"
Start the impeachments with Gonzales, then work our way up. This guy's got to go FIRST.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:53 amI wonder where Mighty White AfroMite Hermaphrodite the Gi Jew lawyer is, I was hoping the she(m) would opine about how Gonzales' statement is on solid legal ground.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:56 amHope the NRA is ready to turn over their guns. There’s no express right to gun ownership in the constitution. It just says we can’t make a law infringing on that right, ya know, assuming it exists, which it may or may not.
Comment by Seitz
Let 'em come get mine.....
I dare them! (click..click)
January 19th, 2007 at 11:58 amOK.. So he agrees that the constitution says that there is a right of habeas corpus... just not to "individuals".
WTF?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:59 amI guees this means I need to arm-up the family.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:03 pmGreat post's all, O.K. Jane.....I was here, read all the post's and now so I don't get round assed am leaving the site to do just that.....Send off more email's in an attempt to get our representatives to get off their dead asses and do what we voted them in to do....
Not going to spend long hours reading and posting any more at all.......No good new's here as usual so I will make some.....Working for Peace and Impeaching this bunch of basterd's....Do as you choose every one but please do more than post here and on other sites, make a diffrence......Blessings
January 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pmTHIS IDIOT is the Chief law enforcement officer in the land?
Someone who doesn't even BELIEVE in the rule of law?
...like the IDIOT who hired him....
...WE are IDIOTS for not DEMANDING that these Bushite clowns be ARRESTED for TREASON!
What's it going to take?
...an invasion by the Chinese and Russians to rid US of OUR Saddam?
January 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pmHabeus Corpus is now a corpse.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pmSharon: Wayne and I are going to DC next weekend, putting our feet where our fingers are(?). We're tired of this and it has to stop.
I'll be more than happy to email our rep and senators about Gonzales. We already know where they stand on Iraq and many other issues (we've got Chuck Shumer, Hillary, and our new rep John ("Dance with Me") Hall.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pmI just want to hear each of them say, “I’m shakin’ it, boss!â€
Comment by JaneESchneider
"See, what we got here, is failure to communicate."
January 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmGonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’...
The Spector, Gonzales confrontation on 'habeas corpus' rights in our Constitution boils down to, 'we have met the enemy and it is us'. Gonzales sees it that the rights of 'habeas corpus' does not apply to everyone when in the Constitution: "...
January 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmAlberto & Arlan probably tipped a couple cool ones back, chuckling at how they had fooled the American people again.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmAsscroft was just a prick. Gonzales is dangerous. He won't tell the truth, his job is cover Bush's ass, not provide clarity to anything.
"I haven't read the report' has been used by him, Cheney & other in the WH. That's no excuse, it's grounds for dismissal!
Laws are 'moving targets' for Alberto. Press until some sunlight appears & then either change venues or drop the activity.
He should have been dragged off the Senate floor straight to jail.
I know Bush had to put in some 'token minorities' on staff, but Gonzales & Rice? Unqualified, overrated, unscrupulous, unintelligent & liars.
Rule by fiat...
If we (the powerbrokers/slave masters) say it enough times...
...you little peons shall believe it!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pmYou have to have a strong enough Constitution to express any hideous corpuscles?
I just can't get it that he really said what he said, I am still in shock.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmHi Jane...In addition to your other protests, I would ask that you and Wayne sign this petition:
http://ditchtheblack.com/
I am a little annoyed at ThinkProgress right now...I twice tried to post a commentary on Gonzales remarks and constitutional law and, so far, it appears they won't post it. I have no idea why not. It violates none of the Terms and Rules.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmIt is impossible to suspend something that does not exist!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThinkProgress, I apologize...I see that my comment is now posted at #68 (and #78....I got impatient and posted twice...Sorry...I guess the length of the comment affects how long it takes to post)...Again, my apologies.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pmHere comes the defenders. Oh boy.
I say and defenders of this go first to be without this right.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pmEx(crement)ley...
YOU violate the Terms of Use...
January 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm[...] According to ThinkProgress, yesterday Gonzo actually stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee the following words: There is no express grant of habeas (corpus) in the Constitution. [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 12:41 pmI had to look it up, Yikes.
:)
Comment by trueblue — January 19, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Thanks trueblue. I looked it up as well. Good word and used correctly by Specter.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pmWhat’s it going to take?
…an invasion by the Chinese and Russians to rid US of OUR Saddam?
Comment by big papa
I would say that Russia and China are really happy with this Saddam of yours...so there is no need to overthrow him. China owns much of US debt and Russia has the largest reserves of Natural Gas in the planet.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pmUnless US invades Iran, Russia and China wont move.
I think what Gonzales and all other Bushites are saying is that, no matter what the words say, they can be turned into whatever they want them to say. Presto, do whatever you want because the words say it.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pmExley--Okay, I signed it. I'll let Wayne know to do so, too.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pmExcellent! Thanks, Jane...
January 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pmWhat's absolutely precious about this is that it captures perfectly the non-sensical basis of all conservative legal theorizing. Here you have this bunch of ideologues who proclaim "strict construction" of the Constitution, yet they manage to find whenever it suits them all sorts of "implied" presidential powers. Hey -- it's either in there or it's not! Now they've come to the point where unless the Constitution says you have X, you don't have X. The president has the "implied" powers to wiretap, sez Gonzo, but you and I haven't the right to habeas because the Constitution only "implies" we do. They're so sweet when they try to make sense of complex concepts like freedom and justice.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm“See, what we got here, is failure to communicate.â€
Comment by trueblue — January 19, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Great movie, isn't it?
January 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pmOn an asides, isn't that guy sitting behind Gonzales's left shoulder the same guy who sat behind Ashcroft when he faced questioning over Abu Ghraib? I'd recognize those "Golly shucks, sure we're guilty. But we only did those god axful things because we love the America soooo much" eyebrows anywhere.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pmthe Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.â€
Alberto Gonzales' argument is that the Constitution does not grant citizens the right to habeas corpus because the wording is different from the one he wants it to be. He disingenously reads the Constitution and ignores the clear meaning of the clause since it doesn't state what he has decided it should, and how.
What is really frightening is that Gonzales, as attorney general, is responsible for enforcing the law -the very same he is bent on interpreting and re-interpreting on a whim.
See, Bush cultists, this is why checks and balances are needed: To stop a small clique from ignoring the law.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pmGonzales even has his little symbol on his lappel. They have turned it into a fascist symbol.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm[...] Gonzales and Specter debate Constitutional right of habeas corpus: 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 — [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pmOh, yeah, and by the way, there aren't any Amendments to the Constitution, those are just changes. They don't mean anything that we don't want them to mean.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pmThe fourteenth one in particular, there's no expressed right to equality or due process.
He's a lying little f*ckwad. Just like his boss.
How can we stand by and watch these arrogant assholes piss on the very foundation of our country?
Even the 30%ers have to wake up at some point and see how seriously f*cked up these pukes are.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pm[...] If you want a clear view of the type of mindset that got us into Iraq, all one has to do is look at the twisted mind of one Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General of the United States. Think Progress was kind enough to capture a moment that this man had while under questioning by Sen. Arlen Specter. You have to see it to believe it. 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 — [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 2:21 pmWhy are they haggling with this ridiculous fool who doesn't know from common sense. Why don't they just impeach the sucker who keeps trying to give the President cover by claiming he (the AG) gave the Prez bad advice. He's nothing but an enabler: always has been; always will be. Impeach Gonzales! And while they're at it, Impeach Chertoff! I'm sure we can think of a few others, since they're so reluctant to do the heavy lifting on the true principals. Impeachment and censure, two more long forgotten Congressional tools that they didn't think we knew about!
January 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pmAfter the break following the Habeas exchange between Specter and Gonzales, Senator Leahy pointed out to Gonzales the number of other rights in the Constitution that are framed in a "negative" way and asked him to declare if he thought the right to free speech also wasn't guaranteed since it's written as not being able to be taken away.
Gonzales claimed he was only pointing out the exact language of the Habeas right.
I love that they're finally being called immediately on their misrepresentations so they can't gain speed on Fox News before they're debunked.
Also, another Senator (Whitehouse from RI? -- a former state AG) used his time to ask Gonzales about people dodging committee questions. (#43 this is for you) He made Gonzales confirm that he has to tell the truth whether put under oath or not when testifying before a Congressional committee and that the chairman may just have the right -- as a judge does in a court -- to force a witness to answer a question he's attempting to dodge or claiming he'll answer later. It was a great exchange -- and I suspect it was designed to set up the next rounds of questionings of Bush administration officials. Brilliant!
January 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI am left actually speachless by this comment from the Attorney General.
The very first comment to this topic was:
What I want to know is: WHAT CAN WE DO?.
No. I mean really.
If a person, a citizen, is outraged, is incensed, is irrate, hearing the head of our Department of Justice saying “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution,†when the most cursory student of the U.S. Constitution KNOWS that this is incorrect, WHAT CAN WE DO?
I want to know because I'm ready to do it.
Now.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pmOne would think that a person in Gonzales' position would surely know the most basic principles of our constitution! Having people like this in our federal government is not only embarrassing but very dangerous to the survival of our country and our freedoms.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pmIsn't there some dude who wants Jody Foster's attention?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pmI only believe in killing when it is to save my life, or those of my loved ones. It seems appropriate in this case.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pmFor Truth, thanks for the laugh!
Exley, I don't see your earlier posts (supposedly #68 + #78.) What happened to them?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pmI guess the revolution will not be interrupted by commercials?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pmfortruth who is paying you??
the terrorists are the ones you support in the house
January 19th, 2007 at 2:53 pmJane
It's either laugh or cry. This one is getting to me today. This one is just way over the line. I don't care if he's technically right. He's ignoring the spirit.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pmNOTICE how these guys, Gonzales and Bush, think everything is funny. Why is Gonzales laughing? It is not a time to be laughing. When someone tells a joke you laugh. This is not a normal reaction to being put in your place in front of a court in a very serious manner. It identifies a person out of touch with their emotions, or confused about their emotions, or a lack of the understanding of emotions. Gonzales is clearly Psychopathic.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pmAhem,
Gonzo is simply another crony in the cabal. He's NOT un/undereducated by any means:
Hmm, bowed out of service?
HE'S a product of illegal immigration?
What a crafty little appointment he's become, eh Shrub?
Our damn upper-encrusted elected officials BETTER get this sh*t straight.
They only play bumbling goofball politicians so you and I won't notice their under-handed manipulations.
Scary indeed.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm#109, Jane....I have no idea. I can understand one of them coming down because of the double-posting. But I have no idea why both were deleted. I e-mailed ThinkProgress to ask why it is no longer there.
Who knows? Maybe just a technical glitch.
It was bascially just a description of the debate among academics and judges as to whether the Constitution expressly grants the federal courts the right to issue a writ of habeas corpus.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pmKC, #105,
"What I want to know is: WHAT CAN WE DO?.
No. I mean really.
If a person, a citizen, is outraged, is incensed, is irrate, hearing the head of our Department of Justice saying “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution,†when the most cursory student of the U.S. Constitution KNOWS that this is incorrect, WHAT CAN WE DO?
I want to know because I’m ready to do it.
Now."
I can tell you what we can do. There is a thing we can do. If we can get a dialog going I can to tell you what it is.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pmBy the way, it does not involve harming anyone. :) DUH.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pmI don’t care if he’s technically right. He’s ignoring the spirit.
Comment by ForTruth — January 19, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
I don't think Gonzales is even "technically" right. He is wrong from beginning to end.
The constitutional clause is clear: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended [...]". Gonzales himself starts to say it before he is cut short by Sen Specter. If it cannot be suspended, it necessarily exists.
That citizens have a right to Habeas Corpus was accepted as a matter of fact. Arguing otherwise else is sophistry, misleading, and -given the Bush administration's track record- should give us all pause.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pmOK.. So he agrees that the constitution says that there is a right of habeas corpus… just not to “individualsâ€.
WTF?
Comment by Art — January 19, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Doesn't this fall right in line with the provisions of the Military Detainee Act? You know, the one in which the President gets to decide who is an enemy combatant and thus does not get the right to H.C.?
And I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone that Bush doesn't give a damn about the treatment of our troops (and possibly non-miltary persons) should they be detained on foreign soil. He told David Gregory that if other nations would adopt the provisions of the MDA, the world would be a better place. The exchange:
David Gregory: "Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules (ask) ... If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, 'Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions,' and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that as commander in chief?"
Bush: "My reaction is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act," he said "the world would be better ... We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards. And let me just repeat: We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward."
January 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pmIsn't Habeus part of the Common Law that much of our culture and government is based upon>?
January 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pmAlberto is a dumb as''!That is for sure.He doesnt meet the requirments for his position.I guess the framers just meant they had the right to Habeas Corpus.The fact that he sugested that and the stuff this mob has passed, should now have all Americans in a state of RED alert, enemy inside the gates,go buy some guns and ammo.Somewhere along those safety lines.The intensions are not good for our future.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pmForTruth, he CAN'T be right, technically or otherwise. I agree, this one is so scary, both in and of itself, but also because it's obvious that he doesn't even know, understand, or care about the Constitition. He only looks at it in relation to how much he can take away from our rights in order to protect what Bushco is doing. The implications of this are enormous and devastating. And when you see all of the other shite going on, whether it's the idiot at Gitmo (who should have been fired!) who thinks that the lawyers for the detainees should be targeted and punished by CEOs of major corporations, or the removal of the US Attorneys who want to prosecute Bush's buddies, every day something new comes up where now the judicial branch is under attack. This administration is whittling away at both of the other branches, just so that he can become the dictator he apparently wanted to be. This would be bad enough even WITHOUT Iraq, Iran, whoever else is next on Bush's hit list (Syria?) Aaagghhh! (I think I need my meds upped!)
Sorry, did I bring you back down again?
January 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pmNOTICE how these guys, Gonzales and Bush, think everything is funny. Why is Gonzales laughing? It is not a time to be laughing. When someone tells a joke you laugh. This is not a normal reaction to being put in your place in front of a court in a very serious manner. It identifies a person out of touch with their emotions, or confused about their emotions, or a lack of the understanding of emotions. Gonzales is clearly Psychopathic.
Comment by USA — January 19, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Notice? Yes I do. Gonzo's and Bush's behavior -- laughing in such circumstances -- is indicative, I believe, of someone thinking "what idiots you all are!" As in Gonzo to Specter: "You are wasting my time. There's nothing you can do to stop us."
January 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pm#113, USA, I think they're all taught how to smirk when they join this administration. (Bush) "No matter what questions they ask ya, just smirk, it always works for me! Hehe!"
January 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pmGonzo is just being consistent. Flashback to 2/9/06 as posted on TP":
In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine that the legal requirement for Bush’s domestic wiretapping program is no lower than the “probable cause†requirement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
.
.
.
But the Justice Department told a different story to the FISA Court judges in order to get their approval of the program. According to the Washington Post, former Attorney General John Ashcroft and former NSA Director Michael Hayden told the FISA Court that the “probable cause†legal burden was too difficult to meet:
January 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
AG has appointed himself to the SCOTUS. His interpretation of the writ of habeus corpus is without precedent. How much does it take to impeach him for his obvious lack of understanding and blatant flouting of the Constitution to which he has sworn to uphold.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pmFirst of all we are a REPUPLIC and NOT a democracy. I say it's about time to draft a new Declaration of Independence and a new Constitution.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pmRUCerious, I think it goes back to the Magna Carta.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pmI'm amused that all the "progressives" here pretend to respect the Constitution.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pmlast night on olberman, some guy (sorry) said that gonzo was acting
“more general than attorneyâ€â€¦
where DID he get his law degree?
Comment by katy — January 19, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Katy, that's Jonathan Turley, the Constitutional law expert that Keith usually has on. Wayne and I thought his "more general than attorney" was perfect!
January 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pmKC,
It's simple. They have declared war on us, the United States citizenry. We do have the right to self defense and the right to turn over our government, in fact, it's our duty. I suggest we all read the Declaration of Independance and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Here is what the Decalration of Independance says about what we should do when people like this take power:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Lock and load people... long live the UNited States of America!!
January 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pmThere is somewhat of a contradiction here. How can a "privilege" not exist if it cannot be suspended? But how can a "privilege" be "suspended" if that privilege was never given? Confusing.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pmIt's a very fine point but the AG is correct. The Constitution does not in fact grant anyone the right of habeas corpus. I don't think there can be any real argument of the letter. The argument lies in intent, and as was posted previously, whether or not the privilege is assumed to exist if it can be suspended.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pmWhat Gonzales has said: That since the Constitution doesn't explicitly spell it out that all US Citizens have the rights of Habeas Corpus "inherently" means that NOBODY has those rights unless they're given by the government at their pleasure.
You Me... everyone is at risk and he is working to create a dictatorship her in America.
This opinion alone makes Gonzales unfit to hold the position of Attorney General. Given Bushes Track Record and past statements it's fairly certain that bush also holds this opinion and MUST BE IMPEACHED ASAP.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:27 pmThe Constitution cannot grant the right of Habeas Corpus because it does not have the power to do so. Habeas Corpus is an inherent right. What the Constitution says is that this natural right shall not be taken away.
Gonzales wants us to think that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments, then we don't have that right. Maybe he should read this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
January 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pm#130 katy
January 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pmJonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington University. He earned his BS at U of Chicago and later, a law degree at Northwestern. Before that he was a prof at Tulane. He was also a congressional page. I am going to guess he is in his late 40's.
However wrong I think he is, don't just dismiss his argument.:
"It is no more irrational to guard against the 'suspension' abuse, without guaranteeing any particular habeas right, than it is, in the Equal Protection Clause to guard against unequal application of the laws without guaranteeing any particular law which enjoys that protection"
-Justice Salia in INS v. St. CYR (2001)
The part that Scalia, and Gonzales miss here, is that the Bill of Rights does not go about conferring things like free speech. Rather, it says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Rights are presumed to exist, as God-given/Natural/etc, and it is only their revocation that must be addressed.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pmWOW, you people are fools. Does it really take an attorney to point out to all of you that the constitution clearly states that it's not a right, it's a privledge? Are you people blind?
I bet out in the real world all of you would keep your mouths shut because you know you'd be made fools of in front of other people, whereas here on the internet you can speak your (empty) minds and suffer no such consequences.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pmIt seems that the terrorists and their allies in the US have won a great victory over freedom. What makes this victory so great and utterly devastating is that it was won in the heart of a country that once upon a time embodied a dream of freedom called America.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pm[...] I just read this transcript on Think Progress. I obviously have my opinion about what Gonzo said, but I am more interested in knowing your thoguhts… 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. [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 4:49 pmThis is almost as bad as the NSA chief standing at a podium exclaiming that the 4th amendment does not require probable cause, but that you just need to "be reasonable".
If our top officials don't know or care about the constitution, or try to reinterpret it for their convenience, I would think that would mean the constitution is in jeopardy.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:53 pmYou are all just a composition of fools, who look upon govt. and pick out comments that support what you have already decided. Your Bush-bashing is as unintelligent as it has ever been. Talk about screwed logic? How about idiots such as yourselves that try to protect enemy combatants and have no problem trying to undermine US efforts just because you you can't stop crying that we didn't pick your guy for prez... twice!
January 19th, 2007 at 4:54 pmGONZALES: 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 —"
Mr. Logic sez: WOW, you people are fools. Does it really take an attorney to point out to all of you that the constitution clearly states that it’s not a right, it’s a privledge? Are you people blind?
Mr. Logic, are you disputing what your Attorney General says? Where exactly in the Constitution does it say "Habeus Corpus is not a right, it's a privilege"?
Nice logic.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:01 pm#133 Shane Wilks
It’s a very fine point but the AG is correct. The Constitution does not in fact grant anyone the right of habeas corpus. I don’t think there can be any real argument of the letter. The argument lies in intent, and as was posted previously, whether or not the privilege is assumed to exist if it can be suspended.
I think the hair that Gonzales is trying to split is between "suspending" and "denying". He seems to be saying that no, we're not suspending habeas corpus, which would imply that it was being lifted for everyone. And then he leaves unsaid that they're merely denying it to certain people.
I don't think that would wash with the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't say "shall not be suspended for everyone". It just says "shall not be suspended". I think a constitutional scholar could safely argue that it would require more language than is there to allow for suspension of habeas corpus for certain groups or individuals of the president's choosing.
Regardless, how is it that somebody hasn't just punched that smirking little spud square in the face?
January 19th, 2007 at 5:04 pmI love how the proof that it's a "Right" clearly says it's a "Privilege".
January 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pmBKG It gets worse! I was selected for jury duty and this clown was accused of DUI, and, and, and... he had an attorney there defending him!
Can you imagine that? The guy was DUI and some lawyer guy was defending his right to a free trial.
I am with you dude, if they are accused of being enemy combatants, let's just shoot the bastards right now.
And it's just too bad that some were already turned loose because some asshole lawyer found evidence that maybe, just maybe, they weren't enemy combatants.
Well, I say hell! Maybe they were after all! Kill them all and let our good lord Jebus figure it out.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pm[...] The essence of tyranny? If you want to know where the Bush administration is coming from, consider where Alberto Gonzales went with the rhetoric yesterday. “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.†[...]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:06 pmThis is the same argument that lead to the Civil War. The argument that lead to the civil war was the section of the Constitution that says that any power not granted to the Federal Government is relegated to the State. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the right of secession to the Federal government, so the argument was that the states had that power. The other side argued that secession is not legal period. Several states seceded and the rest is history.
The argument that the Attorney General makes here is very similar. The Constitution does not say "All citizens are granted the right of habeas." That is a true statement. Specter is arguing that there is a statement that states that habeas can not be removed except for invasion or rebellion. President Lincoln suspended habeas for the exact reason of rebellion. The Attorney General is merely pointing out that while the rules for taking away habeas are given, the rules for who is granted habeas in the first place are not.
Most constitutional arguments are very complicated such as this. The men who initially constructed our government foresaw such issues, which is why we have three branches of the government to allow for these types of issues to be sorted out.
These proceedings are part of that process to sort out complicated constitutional issues. The thing that is great about America is that we have such a process, and it works very well. If this were Venezuela, this would not be the case.
If we can't have such discussions, our system of government will never work. There are going to be differences in how people interpret our laws and constitution, as there should be. What makes our system so great is that we have a chance to debate these issues without violence, and with an even hand.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pmThe Constitution does not grant people rights. It does limit what the government can do, though. Government does not give rights to the people, rather, government only exists by the will of the people. This is made clear in Amendments IX and X of the Bill of Rights. The 9th amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th Amendment states: "the powers not delegated to the United States by Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That is why the Bill of rights is written in the negative. for example, the 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or protecting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;... The Constitution doesn't grant the people the right of free exercise of religion or speech, or press. It's understood that people have these rights. Instead, the Constitution prohibits the Government from infringing on these rights. It's exactly the same with Habeas Corpus.
Gonzalez thinks we are all owned by the government. It's always been the other way around, until now I guess. Remember, the preamble of the Constitution states: "We The People, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice.... and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That's right, WE THE PEOPLE.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pm[...] Think Progress » Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’ YIKES! I don’t think we can rid ourselves of the current administration soon enough… (tags: politics habeuscorpus) [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pm#143 BKG
How about idiots such as yourselves that try to protect enemy combatants and have no problem trying to undermine US efforts just because you you can’t stop crying that we didn’t pick your guy for prez… twice!
1) It's not all enemy combatants who are being denied their rights. If you want to try and argue that everyone who has been thrown into Gitmo is guilty, then why have we released hundreds of prisoners from there after holding them without charges for years? And not just innocent Afghanis or others from the Middle East. We've done that with Canadians, Germans, and even Americans. Maybe you don't mind seeing your country turn into Stalin's Soviet Union. But we do!
2) We didn’t pick your guy for prez… twice ('92 and '96), either. So I guess we're even. But, I guess the thing you're really sore about is that we took the House and Senate away from you. Suck on that for a while.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:16 pmBKG, I voted for Bush. I'm not whining about any politics, I'm concerned for the future of this country.
If you can't see that our democratic republic is in jeopardy, than you just don't pay attention to history, all throughout, which, this sort of thing has happened time and time again.
Go back to watching Fox News and "24", continue to believe that the "enemy" is out to get you, you paranoid fool.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:18 pmBKG, it's really great to see a true American like yourself here amongst the unshaven heathens. The other day they were pissing and moaning about Bush opening their mail. HELLOOO.. If you don't write anything to terrorists, you don't have anything to worry about, right?
And when we have random checkpoints to search cars, I don't have anything to worry about because I don't carry bombs in the trunk.
And when they come to the house in the middle of the night to search for evidence of wrong doing? Just don't do anything wrong and you don't have anything to worry about.
And when they strip your wives and daughters and do cavity searches? No problem here, my kids are clean.
If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
In your ass BKG. Go f*ck yourself with the other Bushies that post here.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:21 pmThe problem is BKJ,
It will spread, and at some point in time, you and I won't have this right. Because it all started over having pissed your pants.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm[...] You can watch the full video, and read the full transcript of this sad exchange here. [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pmComment by Exley — January 19, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Welcome to my world. The reason I and several others took a one-day sabbatical yesterday was because of bona fide posts appearing and disappearing while vulgar and vile posts of "trolls" remained for all to see.
Although it looks like we can debate 9/11 on occasion, other posts which seem to hit too close to home for someone continue to get deleted.
:-P
January 19th, 2007 at 5:32 pmBut...but....you said the Military Commissions Act wouldn't affect citizens!
Now you're telling us we're not entitled to Habeas Corpus either?!?
January 19th, 2007 at 5:47 pm[...] 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. link 'um' is right... Quote: [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pm[...] Except it is Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: “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.†[...]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:51 pm[...] // Home // Full Length Videos // Short Videos // Audio Clips Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’ By catalyst. Posted in Cerebellum News on 01.19.07 17:00 Yesterday, during Senate JudiciaryCommittee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:56 pmGonzales needs to be impeached and then disbarred.
January 19th, 2007 at 6:22 pmThis doc should clairify the right of habeas corpus is a birth right and rights secured by the northwest ordinace 1787, (Thomas Jefferson) These rights belong to those born in the Imperial sister states, have a seperate bill of rights, a/k/a Oh, Mi, In, Il, Wi, all others are assed out.
unless 14 th amendment assertion is made or then its just a priv/right then.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=8
January 19th, 2007 at 6:24 pmComment by BKG — January 19, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Hey...if you want to see a fool, just go look in the mirror, dude.
Bush bashing, unintelligent? Oh, don't make me laugh.
Either you are a complete idiot, or you know Bush is an asshole and a piss-poor excuse for a President yet you refuse to admit it because you just can't be wrong. Hey look, folks, it's the Archie Bunker syndrome.
Bush and his horrible administration and its supporters give us plenty of ammo to bash. Just a brief selection:
Bush: "Americans sacrifice peace of mind."
Bush: "Americans sacrifice by paying higher taxes."
Bush: "We are winning in Iraq."
Robert Gates: "We are not winning in Iraq."
Tony Snow: "Are we winning in Iraq? I don't know. How do you define winning?"
Bush: "Stay the course...stay the course...stay the course!!!"
Tony Snow: "The administration has never been about stay the course."
Former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman (paraphrasing): "The administration has never used 'stay the course.'"
Dick Cheney: "Last throes."
Don Rumsfeld: "We know where the WMDs are."
Bush: "I sleep better at night than most people would think."
And let's not forget every time the SOB has that shitty smile on his face when he talks about the "war" and the deaths of Americans.
Every thing I've quoted above is fact. And it shows Bush's ignorance. It's on video or on the WH web site or in official transcripts. As someone else said earlier, suck on that.
As for "protecting enemy combatants," how do you know they are all guilty? Answer: you don't. And just because Bush and his cronies say so doesn't make it so. And your hero Bush thinks it's just fine and dandy if other countries adopt the provisions of the Military Detainee Act and hold American troops indefinitely and put them on trial while withholding evidence. Good to see you hate America and what it stands for just as much as Bush does.
January 19th, 2007 at 6:27 pmthank you JANE and MARIE... jonathon turley... of course...
January 19th, 2007 at 6:28 pmknow of him well... he helps me understand so much...
just one of those brain farts again... heh...
And then Arlen took him out to lunch, bought him a burrito, and said "don't worry about habeus corpus, Bertie. I got a bark but no bite".
Check mate Gonzo.
January 19th, 2007 at 6:30 pmI took "treading on your interdiction" to be a sly way of saying "stepping on your dick".
January 19th, 2007 at 7:10 pmGonzales has that smug little smirk on his face the whole time, just like his chimpy little boss gets when either of them are responding to a question in regard to trampling the constitution or human rights. They're probably thinking, "Guess what dumb a$$, your rights are already gone and there's nothing you can do about it, or haven't you figured that out yet?" Chimpy also had that same type of stupid, smug little grin on his face when he was lying on national TV about the WMDs.
January 19th, 2007 at 7:26 pm[...] Now here’s an exchange between U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Senator Arlen Spector yesterday: GONZALES: …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 — [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 7:28 pmHe will suffer for his crimes against the United States. Isn't treason punishable by the death penalty?
January 19th, 2007 at 7:44 pmAnswering my own question, yes, treason (as a federal crime) is punishable by the death penalty. (18 U.S.C. 2381). So, let's get these bastards to pay the ultimate price for their actions against the United States, Americans and the world.
January 19th, 2007 at 7:52 pmJudging by the names on your "no fly" list, Rachel, obviously you don't like dealing with people with brains. Perhaps a right wing website would be more to your liking, you know, idiot fool lemmings who are unable to think for themselves.
January 19th, 2007 at 7:54 pm[...] Think Progress / January 19, 2007 [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 8:12 pm[...] Link [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pmI think it’s [the X-Files, Nixon wiretapping, science fiction]. I think it’s predicated in our delirious sense of what’s been happening to us as a species for the past 100 years. During the Cold War it was almost comforting to believe that the CIA was reading everything…
Comment by rachel kinnardi — January 19, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
Don't forget that anyone who sees the truth in all of this is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and then the mindless followers who defend every action of their government readily dismiss them. They've been relieved of their senses, and they cannot get beyond the cognitive dissonance when faced with two opposing "facts" or realities.
It is scary to consider that you may have been supporting the wrong regime, or any regime, when faced with the facts. The Germans were a prime example. Everyone claimed "we didn't know" afterward, but I'm sure there were those 20 - 30% like BKG and others commenting here who would attack anyone who would dare speak out against Hitler, as well. I guess that was so they could say "We didn't know" long after the last dissident was sent to the camps and gassed. Denying is not the same as not knowing. You know, you just can't accept it.
Apparently a temporary sense of comfort, via ignorance, is more important than the future of their nation. Maybe they don't have children, or they don't care about them if they do.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:09 pm[...] CLICK HERE FOR ENTIRE ARTICLE [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 9:10 pmYeah, what does “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense" mean exactly? This is the author of the "Specter Provision" in the Patriot Act talking here. Is some sort of kabuki between patron and suger daddy?
January 19th, 2007 at 9:11 pmWe need to impeach Bush and this man. We are becomming a communist country quickly. They are building camps/prisons, and each day taking away our rights.
When is the American public going to see this? He needs to go back to Mexico, Venezuala or where ever he came from.
He is not upholding "our rights" layed out in the constitution, fire the A'hole.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:29 pm[...] Well, the constitution does not grant every citizen the right to Habeas Corpus…it just guarantees it can’t be removed. But that doesn’t mean you are expressly granted it…oh never mind. Watch the video and enjoy. This is our empire at work. [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 9:38 pmGonzales deserves a (smack) to the head.
You can all see where this is going. The writing is on the wall.
Even republicans like Specter are noticing now.
Bush backers are on a power grab - trying to destroy this country.
And when they come for me, it will be bloody. I promise.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:53 pmThe consolidation of the States into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it. --General Robert E Lee
Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others? Robert E. Lee 1856
January 19th, 2007 at 10:00 pmThe consolidation of the States into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it. --General Robert E Lee
January 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pmIs it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others? Robert E. Lee 1856
And, following Mr. Gonzales' flawless logic, just because the first amendment says that Congress will not abridge free speech does not mean it is guaranteed.
:Sigh:
January 19th, 2007 at 10:02 pmSomeone needs to kick gonzalez's ass. He thinks he is being so clever, this is all laughable and funny to him and his ilk. Please write your representatives to keep them pushing these asswipes.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:22 pmHey, give the guy a break!!
He's working from Addington's copy of the constitution, the one that will be used when they finally implement their full dictatorship.
Geez, you liberals can be soooo nitpicking!!
January 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm#59
How, exactly, is the priveledge of Habeas Corpus supposed to exist if government doesn’t actively grant it?
He seems to believe the Constitution simply says government can’t take Habeas Corpus away — as though it could exist independent of government action. That runs counter to its very definition. It’s absurd.
Actually you're also making an incorrect assumption. The principle of habeus corpus derives from common law, the right existed before the constitution without the government needing to grant it; it certainly exists independent of government action. Independent of government action most of the rights further outlined in the bill of rights exist. Look at the constitution again, the constitution acts a limit of government action, not a granter of rights. Don't forget the catch all 9th and 10th amendments.
It's what the founders meant by natural rights.
For #58 asking where all the conservatives are, we're around, there's just none of us in the white house. I first heard about this particular disgrace from Andrew Sullivan's blog. He's a conservative that has written much about the embarassment the Republican party has become.
ref: http://volokh.com/posts/1125319088.shtml
January 19th, 2007 at 10:50 pmhttp://andrewsullivan.com/
Someone needs to kick gonzalez’s ass. He thinks he is being so clever, this is all laughable and funny to him and his ilk. Please write your representatives to keep them pushing these asswipes.
Comment by sandy — January 19, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
I don't think that would be a good idea. Gonzalez rolls with a secret service motorcade of some half-dozen black SUVs and an entourage of Washington DC Metropolitan Police cruisers, even when he goes to dinner at J Gilbert's in Mclean VA.
Which begs the question, what is an appointed official doing driving around town like he's the leader of Bolivia or Haiti? I guess it's just another sign of what they want to turn this country into -- a third-world tin-pot dictatorship. Who is this guy, with an armored motorcade? Papa Doc Duvalier?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:07 pmAnd, following Mr. Gonzales’ flawless logic, just because the first amendment says that Congress will not abridge free speech does not mean it is guaranteed.
:Sigh:
Comment by Max I — January 19, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Sigh is right. Unfortunately, you are not off the mark at all to follow his logic to its only inevitable conclusion.
Anything they accuse the terrorists or their "enemies" of, you can be damn sure they are more guilty of it than those they accuse. They DESPISE the constitution, they view democracy as weak, liberal and quiant. They hate us for our freedoms.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:12 pmThis doc should clairify the right of habeas corpus is a birth right and rights secured by the northwest ordinace 1787, (Thomas Jefferson) These rights belong to those born in the Imperial sister states, have a seperate bill of rights, a/k/a Oh, Mi, In, Il, Wi, all others are assed out.
unless 14 th amendment assertion is made or then its just a priv/right then.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=8
Comment by Am, Privateer — January 19, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Did you actually read this? This applies to the northwest territory, not to the states that were formed from it. Once they followed the three phase process to become a state, those state governments were then governed by the state constitutions adopted via this process, and also having joined "the union", they fell under the US Constitution, as well.
Are you one of those guys who believes you can put liens on courthouses and refuse to pay taxes because it isn't spelled out in the constitution??
January 19th, 2007 at 11:31 pmwhat a dipshit
January 19th, 2007 at 11:47 pmMost constitutional arguments are very complicated such as this. The men who initially constructed our government foresaw such issues, which is why we have three branches of the government to allow for these types of issues to be sorted out.
These proceedings are part of that process to sort out complicated constitutional issues. The thing that is great about America is that we have such a process, and it works very well. If this were Venezuela, this would not be the case.
If we can’t have such discussions, our system of government will never work. There are going to be differences in how people interpret our laws and constitution, as there should be. What makes our system so great is that we have a chance to debate these issues without violence, and with an even hand.
Comment by DJFelix — January 19, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
If you still rest well at night believing in our three branches, you should look into what the neocons are quietly doing to our federal court system right this moment. They are forcing out US Attorneys so they can appoint more "compliant" attorneys. This is an attack on the third branch, part of the consolidation of power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNWbJV1eBMk&eurl=
But I agree, that is why we have 3 branches, and a bicameral legislation, and a constitution. The government, when out of control, WAS the concern of our founding fathers. They formed this nation because they were unhappy with the result of absolute power and despotism.
And those that cannot tolerate differences of opinions are the true enemies of this nation. People like Bill O'Reilly, several posters on this comment thread like BKG, et al, and even those who control the white house cannot tolerate different opinions, they fear them because they are absolutists, they are the people who will plunge this nation into tyranny.
January 20th, 2007 at 12:17 amapparently you cannot post any comments that discusses the true nature of the neoconservatives, or their contrasts to true conservatism. I've posted several comments attempting to expose the neoconservative movement as an infiltration of the republican party to serve the new-deal/Great Society communist manifesto of the ultra-left, but none of those comments appear. Even though when I paste the same comment into a new comment form, it says I can't post a duplicate.
People need to know, both sides are playing us for fools. The "two parties" are controlled by the same interests, and there are two parties only because the "divide and conquer" strategy has proven highly successful throughout history.
Wake up, and stop buying into the party line, no matter which party you have nationalistic fervor for. Begin to support the people, and the government that is supposed to serve the people, stop blindly following the special interest/super-corporation nation we are ignorantly allowing to form around us.
January 20th, 2007 at 12:34 amThis piece of shit needs to spend the rest of his pathetic life in prison.
January 20th, 2007 at 12:39 amAs defiant of common sense as it is, Gonzo has a slight point. Article 1 Sec. 9 never explicitly states that all citizens have the right to habeas corpus. It only states that to whomever has it, it cannot be taken away unless the case of invasion or rebellion. We all sit here saying that while it is not explicitly stated, it is heavily implied, which is true. But lets substitute the phrase "writ of habeas corpus" with a new word. Let's say, penis.
Now Article 1 Sec. 9 states:
"The privilege of the penis shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Now the Federal government cannot take your penis away unless in cases of rebellion or invasion. For men this is a big sigh of relief. But for women, it doesn't matter. They never had a penis to begin with, so the federal government can do with them as they please.
Also, keep in mind that Article 1 Sec. 9 only applies to those being prosecuted by the federal government. This does not apply to those being prosecuted by the state. Hence, why the states include a statement on habeas corpus in their own constitutions and penal codes. If this was supposed to be a right that all citizens are born with and is unalienable, why was it not explicitly stated, much like Freedom of Speech, or Freedom of the Press?
My point is that laws are written explicitly. Implications don't work. What is scary is not that Gonzo is reading the section, which most of through common sense interpret to mean their is a privilege which all citizens are born with, to mean that there is no inherent right. The scary thing is that maybe the founding father really did word it so ambiguously for a reason.
Please keep in mind that I do highly disagree with Gonzalez, however I do respect the fact that he brings up an interesting point.
Greg
January 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am[...] Thinkprogress has an exchange between our Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. 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 — [...]
January 20th, 2007 at 1:09 amFor #58 asking where all the conservatives are, we’re around, there’s just none of us in the white house. I first heard about this particular disgrace from Andrew Sullivan’s blog. He’s a conservative that has written much about the embarassment the Republican party has become.
Comment by krrh — January 19, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
Some of us conservatives are trying really hard to wake up the fools who sit in front of the boob tube watching Fox News, being fed propoganda from a media outlet owned by an Australian Globalist who wants to see America turned into a gulag-state merged with Mexico and Canada.
But these so-called conservatives, who are just followers of the straussian neocon ultra-left communist agenda believe they actually are conservative, and they love the idea of perpetual war and killing all the people with skin darker than their own, and even those that simply disagree with them. It's hard to get through to these people.
I'm starting to believe we fluoridate our water for the same reasons the Germans fluoridated the water in Poland as soon as they conquered it. Maybe it really is true that fluoride causes people to lose their will to be free. There must be a reason why all of Europe rejected the notion of fluoridating the water, and Britain didn't. That might even explain why Britain is following along with our global conquest ideology, as well. Diminished mental capacity has a wonderful affect in that it allows a totalitarian ideology to just slip in unnoticed after some shocking event that scares the piss out of couch potatos.
January 20th, 2007 at 1:15 amYep. The WHOLE problem is that we just have incompetent people in office. We just need to remove them, elect the next set of 'proposed saviors' and everything will be fine again.
Move along nothing to see here. Only a nutjob would believe this has been going on for over a century, regardless of who is in office. I mean, that would take a conspiracy, wouldn't it? Conspiracies only happen in the minds of pyschotics.
Move along, nothing to see here, citizen. These guys will get what they deserve (lots of money and great jobs.) Congress will save us. We just need to elect the right people. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Move along, citizen, there is nothing to see here.
January 20th, 2007 at 1:18 amImpeachment ARREST!!!
This is the same little, smirking closet fag that justified spying on US citizens by saying Presidents Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt all authorized electronic surveillance (of Americans) on a much broader scale than Bush.
I'm not kidding; watch this ignoramus:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/gonzales-Washington-electronic.wmv
Considering the degree of crimes perpetrated overall by the Bush crime dynasty together with what's happening today and all the 'Twilight Zone" executive orders, you'd have to be dumb as a porch swing not to see that the United States has ALREADY succumbed to a dictatorship.
The time for all good men to come to the aid of their country under a unified rebellion against this tyranny is NOW!!!
# # #
January 20th, 2007 at 1:35 amCanadians are getting pretty tired of you guys.
dammit, what is WRONG with you people?
get it together.
Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!
BlueBerry Pick'n
January 20th, 2007 at 2:14 amcan be found @
ThisCanadian
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
Very clever, Mr. Attorney General! The constitution only says that a certain right MAY NOT BE TAKEN AWAY! So if we assume that US citizens DON'T HAVE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, then they aren't technically taking away any rights.
Wow! A tour de farce! Thank the voters of this great country that an opposition party has been put in place to expose this unbelievable abuse of the national trust.
January 20th, 2007 at 2:15 amWake up, and stop buying into the party line, no matter which party you have nationalistic fervor for. Begin to support the people, and the government that is supposed to serve the people, stop blindly following the special interest/super-corporation nation we are ignorantly allowing to form around us.
Comment by Bob #197
Some of us conservatives are trying really hard to wake up the fools who sit in front of the boob tube watching Fox News, being fed propoganda from a media outlet owned by an Australian Globalist who wants to see America turned into a gulag-state merged with Mexico and Canada.
Comment by Bob#200
Damn Bob,
...a self-described conned'self-servative...
...says something I can agree with...
...will wonders never cease?
January 20th, 2007 at 2:22 amA Canadian for Peace: Gratitude has a short half-life...
Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’ Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzale...
January 20th, 2007 at 2:28 amI HAVE A QUESTION:
ow many US & NATO serving personnel are BEHIND BARS right now?
because they STOOD UP for a STAND DOWNHitler's Drug Addiction: sound familiar?
OH RIGHT! WHAT term limits?
"Save the URINE, Save the WORLD": Bush & the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
Final Age of Empire: Bush impersonating Elmo Blatch? or Green Mile's Percy? "I didn't know the sponge had to be WET!"
Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!
BlueBerry Pick'n
January 20th, 2007 at 2:34 amcan be found @
ThisCanadian
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
Hitler's Drug Addiction: sound familiar?...
Thirty-five million tablets During the short period between April and July of 1940, more than 35 million tablets of Pervitin and Isophan (a slightly modified version produced by the Knoll pharmaceutical company) were shipped to the German army and air...
January 20th, 2007 at 2:35 amFrom Hitler to Elvis: Medical Ethics ...
What do Hitler ...
January 20th, 2007 at 2:35 amCanada sending troops yet most troop pleas overlooked by NATO members...
But for NATO, this defines Canada's commitment.But I fear we've slipped from the storyline... ...
January 20th, 2007 at 2:40 amVeterans against War video...
"If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful jo...
January 20th, 2007 at 2:43 amCanada to raise U.S. bank policy with security czar...
"In our view, Canadians are equal. A Canadian is a Canadian. And I think the government should take this up at a very high level in the United States and object to this," he said. "I think that Stephen Harper should use up some of the capital he has...
January 20th, 2007 at 2:46 amDamn Bob,
…a self-described conned’self-servative…
…says something I can agree with…
…will wonders never cease?
Comment by big papa — January 20, 2007 @ 2:22 am
We can only hope the wonders will never cease. When they do, we are all doomed.
Yes, I am a conservative. But please don't use the condescending term you used above when describing me. I am not what you think a conservative is. Even the people who believe they are conservative, "post 9/11" wouldn't know a conservative if they ever saw one. A conservative wants small government, decentralized, with more power in the states instead of in the federal government, FREE MARKETS with little regulation and at least a semblance of self-determination. THAT is true conservatism. I think a lot of people are now calling that "libertarianism", but if you read your history, and just look back to the Goldwater days, or back to Eisenhower, or to really know it, study the founding of this nation, and you'll see what a real conservative is (or was).
I was even going with the flow, and being slowly dragged into this nightmare they now call "neoconservatism" right up until some planes hit these tall buildings in NYC. Then I woke up and realized I was being manipulated by people who had an agenda.
Does anyone realize Bill Clinton's administration made a concerted effort in destroying the "right wing militias", but in reality they were setting the stage for what we are now experiencing. They demonized anyone who "believed in the constitution" or spoke out against ever increasing government encroachment on our basic civil rights.
This is a game, and we're the pawns, and the people who know they are playing the game are winning, while we lose.
January 20th, 2007 at 2:53 amThisCanadian, drugs in the military is nothing new. Our air force pilots are issued "go" and "no go" pills during combat operations. "go" pills are basically crystal meth, but they're "pharmaceutical" so it's okay. "no go" pills are basically valium or sleeping pills.
The Japanese are the ones we can thank for coming up with crystal meth, in fact. They fed it to their factory workers to increase production.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:14 amwow, this time all the censored comments suddenly appeared. My apology for trying to debug their censoring to see what words would trip it.
comments 217 through 222 are repeats. SORRY!
January 20th, 2007 at 3:23 amor maybe they have a very poorly implemented load-balancing scheme. Because now my apology for comments 217 - 222 is comment 215.
Or maybe the special office at Centcom in Tampa that is tasked to engange bloggers is just having a bad night and they are screwing up really well tonight.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:27 amNotice Gonzales's shit ass grin, yeah like he really cares. Looks like he's just trying to" b.s." his way through to see what "crap" he can get away with! What do you want to bet--he's NEVER READ THE CONSTITION????
January 20th, 2007 at 4:06 amI truly find it amazing ,just like Bush-- they can't even understand the written English language! Like when Bush said the Geneva Conventions were too vague!! Yeah right, you guys need to go back to school!!
January 20th, 2007 at 4:12 am
.sigh. and it’s just so-so-sad that the current Attorney General, numero uno in “law enforcement†for les etats unis thinking and _saying_ that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee habeas corpus isn’t even the stupidest or most damning thing said by an attorney general in modern times… anybody else old enough to ‘member Edwin Meese saying “well if they weren’t guilty they wouldn’t be suspects!†? ah, the good ol’ days… wha’?
Comment by saisai — January 20, 2007 @ 4:12 am
How about the NSA chief saying "no, it doesn't say 'probable cause', it just says it needs to be reasonable...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM
Reporter: "But doesn't the 4th amendment say that there needs to be probable cause?"
Gen. Hayden: "NO! If there's any amendment of the constitution that employees of the NSA are familiar with, it's the 4th. It says that searches must be reasonable".
Wow. So if there's ANY amendmendent these guys know, it's the 4th, and they don't even know that one!!!! And I'm implying from his comments that they don't care or need to know about any of the others.
W E . A R E . D O O M E D ! ! ! ! ! !
January 20th, 2007 at 4:29 amoops, meant I'm inferring, not implying.
January 20th, 2007 at 4:30 amNotice Gonzales’s shit ass grin, yeah like he really cares. Looks like he’s just trying to†b.s.†his way through to see what “crap†he can get away with! What do you want to bet–he’s NEVER READ THE CONSTITION????
I truly find it amazing ,just like Bush– they can’t even understand the written English language! Like when Bush said the Geneva Conventions were too vague!! Yeah right, you guys need to go back to school!!
Comment by cindy — January 20, 2007 @ 4:06 am
They answer to a higher master. They don't need to go back to school, they are as smart as they need to be to do the jobs they were put in place to accomplish.
They answer to the powers that want what has been a goal since the beginning of the industrial age, if not earlier --- to subjugate the "unwashed masses" and turn them into production units that serve the "elite" and "enlightened" folks who worship power, sex and money above any God, any morals or any concept of bettering society. They don't care about improving society, because as it improves, more and more people become free. They don't like that, because they see that as just more people competing for their precious fame, power and wealth.
They are just washed over ultra-intellectual liberals. The folks that believe they are superiour to everyone else, who believe they have some "secret" konwledge and that they can lord over us and tell us how to live our lives.
It's sad. Because the Bible talks about "the end times", and they use that against ignorant "believers", but the reality is, "the end times" are just a parable describing what has happened to all "great" empires throughout history -- failure, and a loss of the social knowledge that plunges people back into "dark ages". When these guys bring it to a head, we'll lose all the technology we built, and 2000 years from now they'll be astounded to discover that we had electricity, computers, etc, because it will have taken them that long to rediscover and rebuild to that level.
January 20th, 2007 at 4:48 am[...] While it’s quite tempting to declare Attorney General Alberto Gonzales the moron of the week for his innovative interpretation of the Constitution, I will stand by my self-imposed rule of only considering unknowns. This week, the honor goes to a true unknown. [...]
January 20th, 2007 at 6:54 am[...] I wasn’t going to post anything this weekend, because my friend’s computer is difficult for me to work with, and because I don’t have much online time while I’m here in Portland, but I just have to comment on this video of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ testimony. In it, Gonzales says that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right of habeas corpus to individual Americans. [...]
January 20th, 2007 at 7:06 amHave you all noticed that the Constitution does not say "The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety may require it, but only for American Citizens and only when they are in the territory of the United States of America"? Obviously the article was meant by the framers of the Constitution to apply to all human beings everywhere in the world that are in the custody of the U.S. Government. Ergo: also in Guantanamo.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:03 amHave you all noticed that the Constitution does not say: "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, but only for U.S. Citizens and only when they are in the territory of the United States of America"? Obviously the framers of the Constitution wanted this article to apply to all human beings in U.S. custody everywhere in the world. Ergo: also in Guantanamo.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:10 am[...] 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.†Watch video here. Explore posts in the same categories: Video, Tomorrow Belongs to Us [...]
January 20th, 2007 at 9:43 amDear Tp Staff,
Is their anything more that can be done by you and your posters to make me more comfortable in my stay here at TP?
They seem to be full of vitriol and hatred for one another and this fervor is at a fever pitch and well, to be honest, some of them are just down right rude and nasty here at TP. I think they know whom they are.
I dont feel like I am getting my moneys worth as a taxpaying United States citizen.
I hope you will look into this slight at your earliest convenience.
I paid for this and I am not getting my moneys worth.
I demand compensation for your lack of goodwill toward your fellow man.
I will accept payment in the form of cooperation and a general feeling of goodwill from your regular posters.
I expect these demands to be met and to resume immediately.
If this is not recieved, other forms of compensation will be sought and recieved.
Somehow until then I will manage to muddle through, but this blogging hobby is starting to become a burden and well you know, I just think you could try harder to make me more comfortable here since after all,it is my hard earned tax dollars funding this site. I just dont feel you are doing enough to make my stay here amiable and pleasurable like your ad stated on the box. Truth in advertising is the law.
I will forgive this mishap this time, but in the future please look into and perhaps sponsor starter academic programs for a select few posters here, perhaps offer simple courses like:
Note - 1 semester equals 6 months
1) People Skills 101 - 1 semester
2) How to Debate and Win! - I II III IV - 4 semesters
3) Know When to Say When - I II III IV - 4 semesters
4) The Basics of Ebb and Flow - I II III IV - 4 semesters
5) Priciples of Sharing - I II III IV - 4 semesters
6) Gift of Knowledge - I II III IV - 4 semesters
7) Communications for the Masses -I II III IV - 4 semesters
I will look forward to your reply in a memo here.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:20 amHabeas is essentially restated in this section of the 5th Amendment: No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
This does not state "no citizen" but no person. Due process implies all the rights that Habeas grants. Even someone who lernt "lawyerin'" from watching Matlock would be able to figure this out. Gonzo is like a Disney version of the AG.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:34 amI have thought for some time that lawyers/barrister in both the US and the UK are not particularly intelligent people, and that when we ask a lawyer to represent us in court we are indicating that we are not as intelligent as them. Habeous Corpus is being denied all over the place. We should all be considered innocent until proven guilty, but in the west, including Europe, this is being used the other way round. We are guilty until proven innocent. Europe I would add uses habeous juris, and we in the UK are losing our Habeous Corpus since joining the EU. What a farce by all legal representatives. Common sense doesn't exist anymore, or so one of our UK leading legal eagles once stated publicly.
January 20th, 2007 at 12:08 pmAlberto Gonzales should be imprisoned indefinitely and denied due process, since that is the sort of constitutional right he recognises and endorses. He is a slimey, disgusting, loathsome predator and that is the only reason he was ever appointed to the current office he holds.
January 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pm[...] Ring the bell, bitches. School’s in. And just drop your passports on that table as you leave. Filed under: Aieee! Teh Stoopid! It burns! — Lex @ 3:24 pm You people who so stupidly defended the indefensible for so long have long since outworn any inclination I might once have had to treat you as sentient human beings. So I was just going to ignore you, until this week when we witnessed an episode of administration idiocy, right out in public on C-Span and everything, so stunning in its unlikelihood and breathtaking in its idiocy that historians of this administration will be shaking their heads at it in sad awe two centuries from now. And this, by God and sonny Jesus, I am not going to ignorej, nor will I ignore or excuse your role in it. [...]
January 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pmSaid bush the lessor "Quit throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper". I need a roll of toilet paper with these asshats faces on each tissue so I can show them the proper respect they deserve on a regular basis.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pmSec. 1897. The organic law is the Constitution of Government, and is altogether written. Other written laws are denominated statutes. The written law of this State is therefore contained in its Constitution and statutes, and in the Constitution and statutes of the United States. By addressing a misconception in the interpretation by someone "NOT SURE" is a scary message to everyone that one entity is out of control, and therefore 'trying' to take control of the people, as stated in the Constitution ("WE THE PEOPLE"). Having limited jurisdiction, does not grant the Attorney General any preference beyond his duties-it is magisterial at best, not part of the peoples choice or facts. This is like "sweeping facts under the rug!" with all the other dirt already of officials accumulated.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pmWOW, you people are fools. Does it really take an attorney to point out to all of you that the constitution clearly states that it’s not a right, it’s a privledge? Are you people blind?
I bet out in the real world all of you would keep your mouths shut because you know you’d be made fools of in front of other people, whereas here on the internet you can speak your (empty) minds and suffer no such consequences.
Comment by Mr. Logic — January 19, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Do you mean like the fool you just made yourself out to be? Did you go to high school? We don't have privilege in this country, we have RIGHTS, and they are NATURAL, Inalienable rights:
"Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" for property in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence also based natural or "unalienable rights" on human nature, arguing that it was "self-evident" that human beings by their very nature seek life, liberty, and happiness. This assumed, like Hobbes, Locke and Jean–Jacques Rousseau - also a major social contract thinker - the right of human beings to follow their nature as a natural right antedating and not bestowed by government."
I suppose you don't understand that last sentence. It means these rights exist prior to, and not as a result of government.
I think you could argue that driving on public roads is a "privilege", but arguing that being a free person is a privilege is just foolish and ignorant.
January 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pmAlberto Gonzales should be imprisoned indefinitely and denied due process, since that is the sort of constitutional right he recognises and endorses. He is a slimey, disgusting, loathsome predator and that is the only reason he was ever appointed to the current office he holds.
Comment by Randy Nason — January 20, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
You would think so. However, along with the concept of the people being subjugants of those who have power, they also hold the concept that they operate above and outside the law. They are not subject to the same rules as we are. We are the subjects, they are the rulers. They abide by their own set of laws.
It would be foreign to anyone holding any form of power in the US government to hold anyone else in the government accountable for their actions (unless of course, they go against these principles and try to return us to the true American principles)
The only way out is a long one, where we begin to recognize that the majority of politicians and public officials are compromised, get them out of office and insist on only true Americans representing us. Anyone who violates the social contract has no business being in office. Eisenhower tried to warn us that a powerful military/industrial alliance would overpower the public interest in pursuit of conquest and profits and that we would lose our republic if we did not remain ever vigilant. Greed and a lust for power are vices. We need to stop promoting these vices, if we wish to ever advance as a society, or even continue to be a society of certain democratic principles.
It is obvious that many in our country have already been pulled towards the undemocratic way of thinking, where opposing views are violently oppressed, where discourse is viewed as "supporting the enemy" and any effort to bring reason back to the table is considered "treason". These are the folks that should be required to take a basic High School civics class, and perhaps not allowed to take part in our society until they understand and support these basic principles.
A good example of this distorted way of thinking is Rosie O'Donnel -- a decade ago, she spoke out against gun ownership, saying nobody should be allowed to own a gun. When asked if that included her armed body guard, she proclaimed "That's different! I require extra security because I'm famous" -- this is the way these "elitists" think, that they are super-citizens, or have earned additional rights beyond those of us "common people" because of the positions they hold or the wealth they've accumulated.
January 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pmWhy should habeas corpus be suspended during rebellion or invasion??? Why shoud the right to a fair trial EVER be denied?????
January 20th, 2007 at 5:01 pmWhy should habeas corpus be suspended during rebellion or invasion??? Why shoud the right to a fair trial EVER be denied?????
Comment by rmf — January 20, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Yeah, doesn't that imply that our system is flawed, and that we should just go ahead and abandon it all and become a monarchy or dictatorship?
If you believe in our system, you would probably want to support it, not undermine it.
Our laws are good, and we should follow them. We have built a superior system of justice, and I used to think we all believed it was better to let 10 guilty people go free if it prevents ONE innocent person from being wrongfully denied their rights, not the other way around. But I suppose many have allowed fear to override basic principles of justice and good social order. Fear is the basis of saying it is better to lock up or kill everyone because some of them might be guilty. Fear is the basis of abandoning democracy for a false sense of security.
January 20th, 2007 at 5:10 pmI also find it odd that the Constitution grants the government the right to suspend habeas corpus during a rebellion, when in another section it says it is the right, the duty, of the people to overthrow a despotic government.
January 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pm[...] I’m sure you’ve heard by now that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has, in a terrifying bit of hair-splitting, said that Americans have no explicit right to habeas corpus: [...]
January 20th, 2007 at 5:43 pmJefferson pulled the slickest shell game in history. The Constitution does NOT grant rights to anybody. It assumes that we all have many rights. It limits the rights the government can take away.
Congress shall make no law....
Do your best to find a law that requires the payment of income taxes. There is no law. In fact there is a constitutional prohibition against such a law. Go ahead and look. The best the IRS can come up with is a statement that people have been put in jail for not paying, but can make no statement that any law was broken by the non-payer.
71% of the people who work for the Executive Branch of the government did not file tax returns in 2005. Go look it up!
January 20th, 2007 at 6:09 pm"There is no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution… there’s a prohibition against taking it awayâ€...
Not only is this a clear straying from common sense, moronically and smirkingly delivered behind a facade which I suppose is intended to impress us as being clever lawerly parsing or logic; it goes beyond lack of common sense and dives into the numbing waters of total ignorance about what rightsactually are.
Simply put: habeas corpus, freedom of speech, religion, etc. and all those other things are rights, and not privileges. Rights are never granted -- every individual is born with them. They are inalienable -- but apparently Gonzales has never bought in to that whole Declaration of Independence thing.
Privileges, on the other hand, are granted by someone with the authority to grant them. They are granted, and they can be taken away.
None of the rights talked about in the Constitution, or in the Bill of Rights, are granted -- for a good reason. It's because even the Constitution can't grant you rights -- you're born with them. But Gonzales, being the butt-sucking sycophantic Bushevite that he is, is mutually dedicated to a return to and an embracing of an old system of Monarchy in which even rights are presumed to be grantable by the government or King.
In this performance Gonzales just showed himself to be incredibly, drooling, white-light stupid. He must look up to George as being some kind of towering intellect.
January 20th, 2007 at 6:15 pmCan't wait to see what the attorney general Hillary picks thinks.
January 20th, 2007 at 6:59 pmIn this performance Gonzales just showed himself to be incredibly, drooling, white-light stupid. He must look up to George as being some kind of towering intellect.
Comment by colonius — January 20, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Believing they are stupid is simply playing into their game.
It's like how everyone just assumed FEMA was incompetent in their handling of New Orleans after hurrican katrina. Human nature being what it is, everyone focused on how stupid it all appeared because it enables many to feel a little better than someone else by comparison, when in reality they were simply taking advantage of a natural disaster to implement an amazingly efficient gentrification project. They very effectively disbursed some of the poorest, most uneducated people all over the country, even as far away as Alaska. You could call it a "kinder, gentler ethnic cleansing," if you want. Even the people of New Orleans used to say "Welcome to New Orleans. And if it's your first time... welcome to the third-world!" And when you consider 90% of the population lived at or near poverty, and there were little areas of wealth, it truly was a model of the third world, like say, Brazil. People practically lived in Favelas and shanty-towns, while a small group lived in lavish luxury.
While the common thinking is to "never attribute to conspiracy that which can easily be explained as incompetence", I believe that, too, is part of the smokescreen. The reality is, never attribute to incompetence what can be attributed to a concerted effort by those with an agenda. When this government puts it's mind to something, and truly wants to achieve some goal, it usually does. When it appears to be bungling something, I think it's safe to say it is by design.
Just consider how Payne Stewart's lear jet lost contact with air traffic control and had an F16 escorting it within roughly FIFTEEN to TWENTY MINUTES, in 1999, while 4 passenger jets were able to roam around the skies for up to TWO HOURS without any air defense response near the end of 2001. I can't believe our military and civilian air defense network suddenly became incompetent in less than two years. I would say someone wanted it that way.
The people who do their jobs do it well. Believe me, they would be fired if they didn't do their jobs the way someone wanted them to do it.
Alberto Gonzales was most likely following a script. It is imperative to continue driving the public consciousness in the direction we've been heading in for many decades. There is an end game, and they can't begin the end until all their ducks are in a row.
January 20th, 2007 at 8:40 pmAttention Comrades,
January 20th, 2007 at 8:47 pmPlease visit http://ministryoflove.wordpress.com to learn about our creative protest of the Military Commissions Act.
Regards,
O'Brien
Can’t wait to see what the attorney general Hillary picks thinks.
Comment by Dave — January 20, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
I think her AG pick is the least of our worries. She's a more fervent globalist than any of the neocons. Plus, we'll certainly end up with sub-standard medical care and mandatory "federal service" for all americans.
In other words, get ready for soviet-style America.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:32 pm"Believing they are stupid is simply playing into their game." -- Bob.
And, “never attribute to conspiracy that which can easily be explained as incompetence".
I happen to agree with you. Every point you make is valid, though of course not provable, which I think you attest to. Incompetence, or deadly conspiracy and intelligent design? I myself am not one of those people (do they even exist, or are they straw men?) who believes that what we are seeing is the result of gross incompetence.
The second quote from you, that I place at the top of this post -- I don't agree that is "common thinking" (of course I too see it crop up in posts) -- I think it is something passed along by those pesky pundits, who try to tell us what everyone is thinking. Any actual person I actually know understands that yes, there is incompetence, but then again, there is lots of deliberate mischief practiced by those in power -- and they've been practicing it until they really get it down. I believe that any thinking person understands that.
However, all the points you make, and many more indications of deliberate malfeasnce that we don't have space to cover, are not inconsistence with certain actors -- like Bush, Rice, and Gonzales -- being total idiots, puppets being manipulated by everyone from Cheney and Rove to Chalabi, the Sauds and bin Ladens, and Exxon. As you said, "Alberto Gonzales was most likely following a script."
My comments on Gonzales' stupidity were not just me venting my frustration at the gross arrogance and malfeasance that these people have conspired to exercise without accountability. Rather, what I said is really based on my observations and perceptions of Gonzales and Rice, and especially of Bush, anytime they open their mouths and spew their ... whatever they spew, I'm not sure we should call them ideas, philosophies, or ideologies, no, instead, we should use Bush's words, their "guts" ... when I watch these three people in particular, I am amazed at how really, pathetically stupid they are. Just smart enough, unfortunately, to follow a script, but with only the vaguest of ideas of how they are going to get out of the hole they've dug themselves into.
From time to time I come across someone cautioning us not to assume that Bush is so stupid as he looks and acts, that he really has a lot more on the ball than we think. When I see these reports I read them carefully to try to understand what they've seen that I haven't. The weird thing is, I haven't ever seen any of these writers present a really convincing story to show me that what they're saying is true, that Bush has the smarts to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. I'm open minded about this, and am willing to be convinced, but so far noone has come up with a shred of insight or evidence to back up their contention that he really has an IQ well above the 90 that's usually reported.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:47 pmColonius,
We must be of the same mind, or we are buying into the same propoganda, which is apparently the opposite of the propoganda I fear mainstream Americans are buying into. After all, we're all a product of the information we are fed, and if we don't realize we're being fed skewed information, we buy it hook line and sinker.
I'm guessing you are like me, and at least recognize that EVERYTHING we read, see, and hear is propoganda in one form or another and at least attempt to filter and reason your way through the mess, so that you might be able to discern even a little bit of truth from it all (an English Professor back in 1991 once made us read Time and Newsweek's identical articles, then write about what bias we could discern from between the two. It's a good exercise to teach yourself how to find facts and discover what they want you to think from reading their articles). It's hard to find the truth. The whole mess has been going on for so long that even the people that believe they are telling the truth sometimes don't realize how far into the looking glass their ideas and thoughts really are. I know, I work for an international wire service, in a support role, but I deal with journalists, and many of them are sincerely trying, but are so far into the lie they don't know anymore. Imagine if you just graduated from college, some time in the last 3 or 4 years. You'd probably have a world view that was so embedded in "9/11" that you would just herd yourself into the neocon lies and not have any idea about how this progression has been occurring since at least WWII, if not well before that. I at least have a benchmark, I remember, vaguely, hearing about Nixon's little problems on the radio when I was a kid. I at least remember the Iran/Contra hearings. I remember reading a hustler magazine article about centralizing information between various government agencies and how that was entirely un-American. These kids are deer in the headlights, they don't know what's hitting them. They have no historical balance, they are buying into it, and may not even realize when it's too late how bad it really has become because they have been slowly brought through an intellectual process to come to the intellecutal conclusion that this is the way it needs to be.
I know what you're saying. You can't believe that people are buying into it because everyone you talk to cannot believe this bs. But don't forget, "like attracts like", "same seeks same", "birds of a feather flock together" and so on and so on. You may know someone who is a die-hard, full-fledged Fox News, vehement neocon defender, but most people you know probably think the same way you do, see things, in general, the same way you do. So don't base your view of the overall world on what you've heard from friends and acquaintances, that is the very exact mistake these foxhounds are making, and we cannot afford to make that mistake. That is the error of the weak and lazy, the ignorant believers. We are aware. We can understand that others do not think like us, and on the other side of that coin, that if we think this way, then there are others who really do think the way we do. No thought or idea is unique. If you have an idea, chances are there are 10 other people having that very same idea, at that very same moment, somewhere in the world. There is a "collective mind", and no idea exists in a vacuum.
This may have been propoganda, but I believe GW has a higher IQ than 90. I took an online IQ test a few years ago and the result page compared me to "famous people". I was higher than GW by about 20 points, but equal to Madonna. Clinton had a higher IQ than me, and my score was either 148 or 156 (I can't remember, just like I'm not sure if my SAT score was 1310 or 1210, because it was twenty years ago). So don't worry about IQ. If Madonna is a genius, we're in trouble. Clinton, I can believe he's a fairly smart guy. and I don't doubt that GW is not stupid, but maybe a little too "party boy" to really apply himself. I know, I've been through a similar "phase" as our dear leader, I loved to party in High School and College. I always looked down on the coke-heads, but I never had a problem smoking a nice fat dooby in College.
What we need to get people to understand is that our nation is no longer following constitutional principles. We are now on conquest, on the path of empire. If people would read the Project for a New American Century's document "On Rebuilding America's Defences", they would realize we've gone beyond crossing the Rubicon to embarking on Empire. We already crossed the Rubicon in the civil war. We are now no longer a rebuplic, but an empire. And anyone who was paid attention to history will know, empires come and go. Empires are the path to destruction, after a very transient period of wealth and prosperity. America was once on the path to having a 1,000, maybe even 10,000 year realm. But certain folks achieved enough wealth and power to decide to embark on the same path that will achieve, for a few, the same wealth at the expense of longevity, progress and the opportunity to provide everyone the affluence and prosperity that the Romans almost were able to provide every citizen in their domain. We can have progress, or we can allow a few to achieve extravagant, disproportionate wealth. I'm sure to some that sounds communist, but if anyone can see the wealth that average Americans achieved since WWII, then maybe they can imagine how that would be if EVERY LIVING BEING ON THE PLANET COULD ACHIEVE THAT!!!!
January 21st, 2007 at 3:28 amSo how do we avoid the mistakes of the Roman Empire, and achieve the goals of the Roman Republic???
That is the key!!!!
January 21st, 2007 at 3:44 amand it isn't Hillary's ideas. We want to achieve universal prosperity, wealth for all.
The Roman Republic almost achieved bringing wealth to ALL.
Communism is a control ideology, you work as hard as you can, but you are rewarded the same as everyone else.
This is true capitalism's TRUE reality -- everyone can rise up economically, not a share system, not some oppressive system, but everyone has the same opportunity, we bring the very same resources and opportunities to EVERYONE, and we all get to enjoy the fruits of this land, not the elite enjoying the fruit of everyone's labor.
And of course, we can still shit on people. Don't worry foxhounds, there will always be people who don't take part in society, so you can still feel superior to someone.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:02 amThat was our nation's goal... by the way... to achieve prosperity for EVERYONE.
We can do it. We can rise up, instead of dumbing down. We don't need to find the "lowest common denominator".
This planet is huge. There are not resource issues, as long as we all work together. Again, not communism, but a simple respect for your fellow man, just allow our neighbor to raise his kids, just allow your neighbor to EXIST. WHY HATE anyone? What does that help, how does that serve you? Everyone on this planet just wants to live, to be free, to raise their own children and the resources you believe to be "limited" are actually so god-damned plentiful it boggles the mind.
Look to the horizon. You will never consume enough resources to make it to the horizon. Therefore, there are no "resource conflicts". The only reason we believe there is, is because people make money from resources. Gasoline is a prime example. Oil is plentiful. Yet we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was tweaking oil prices by increasing and decreasing the amount of oil he sent through the "oil for food program".
people need to pay attention, or they get caught in the cross-fire, they are victims as soon as they pay more attention to "American Idol"
January 21st, 2007 at 4:20 amLate night, Bob.
LOL, I was thinking about whether we can point to any intellectual accomplishments Bush might have to his credit -- writing a book, no, publishing a paper, no, um, how about a white paper, nope, never did that either. Actually, look back at what you just wrote tonight, and ask yourself, did Bush ever even sit down and write something as thoughtful in content or discursive and curious in intent as what you just wrote? and I'd be willing to bet not. Not once. Look a the guy -- it's just not in him. And there's your IQ comparison between you and Bush, right there.
You are having thoughts, lots of them, and writing them down to share them -- as an activity to engage in, that's probably as foreign to Bush as it would be to a seaslug. But at least a seaslug is good at being a seaslug. Bush is supposed to be a human, and a leader.
Anyway, I really think journalism is capable of providing the real dope, operating outside the realm of propaganda, and I can remember when it did -- and it was taken for granted that it was the way we did things in this country, and if a politician tried to bully the press, he was dead meat because journalists had balls about one thing if nothing else, and that was holding government's feet to the fire, and propaganda was something that they did in the Soviet Union. We weren't naive, either, we thought and debated about notions like propaganda and the myth of objectivity, but as long as we remained conscious, diligent, and conscientious in our open and vigorous debate, we were above that sort of corrupting influence here.
There've been high points and low points in our American centuries, for the press -- but free speech has always come through, enabled by the First Amendment and the passions the founding fathers had for Rationalism in the face of Divine Rights of Kings. It's come through in the clinch, and in this cycle it's not been the Press, it's been citizens on the internet that've kept the ball of truth rolling -- just like the circulation of pamphlets did in colonial times. You've been living in the decline that began especially with the casual discarding of the Fairness Doctrine, and turbocharged by the Telecommunications Act. Talk about stupidity, what were they (we) thinking about? Let's remove the government's laws that prevent the Press from being bought out by giant corporations lock, stock and barrel! That's real freedom! Deregulate everything!
Anyway, I don't think America has the history yet, hasn't clocked enough time, to really look at things from the perspective of empire and self-destruction. Except in the way of admonitions such as were made by men like Lincoln when the Republic was still new, to the effect that we would not be brought down by any foreign invader, but by corruption from within. Is the corruption we see in this cycle necessarily the terminal state of our constitution, or will the pendulum swing back, as it did under FDR - to - JFK?
The Romans lasted a *long* time. In fact, I'm pretty sure we are just the latest installment of the Roman Empire (the second one, I guess) awakening from a 500 year dormancy, a light sleep as it were, nothing like actual death. Troy is no more, the Greeks live on thanks to their inclusion in the vast Roman net, Sparta is no more, but Rome has not faltered. We've added a few new things, like Rationalism, a constitution (largely influenced by early English kingdoms and the three-body governments employed by some American Indians), Arabic mathematical inventions along with the separation of math and science from religion, but otherwise pretty much everything else we do and have comes directly from the life of Rome. Though a Roman today would be very puzzled by one thing -- wondering, why the hell are we speaking a derivative of Germanic, while the people tilling our fields and working in our houses are speaking a derivative of Latin? How the hell did that happen?
I've never before heard onyone claim that the Romans had reached a point where they provided every citizen in their domain affluence and prosperity. I thought postwar America held the record for producing a numerically dominant middle class -- a vision I believe was widely held by the founding fathers themselves. Much of your malaise seems to stem from what is apalling the whole nation -- that this much-cherished institution, the American Middle Class, is being casually dismantled by those who would be happier in a Dickensian America.
I don't think, anyway, that we are buying into anyone's propaganda when we speak of the things that we observe and learn of through the reports of other honest and concerned people. When it comes to loving peace and freedom, and hating war and oppression, there is no hidden agenda, no profit-greedy counterpart to the weapons-shops, no need to distort the truth.
And in your final sentences, you bring up a point that I have believed for a number of years now may be the next great leap forward in human affairs. The utopia / dystopia lore of our times (since the birth of Rationalism, say) always comes down to a moral that utopias don't work, that the human condition is war, greed, corruption, and brutality, to the point where this is now unthinkingly accepted as true. Humanity's problems are so massive as to be virtually insurmountable. Yet, we've only had a few centuries to build any sort of Rational momentum, and look at what has been accomplished. The sense is that we have developed technology that we are just not mature enough to play with -- but what if that isn't true? What if we just grew up, the way individuals do when they realize that they have to?
Then, new dawn begins to show, based on a single, simple, indisputable, glaringly obvious fact just waiting to be recognized and acted upon: that we have the means, the science, technology, and process, to create a Paradise on Earth. And nothing but religious dogma objects and stands in the way.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:44 amI know you don't know what life is really worth. Half the story is never told.
Know you see the light.
Get up stand up. Stand up for your right. Don't give up for your right.
Don't give up the fight.
Now you've seen the light. Stand up for your right.
If you know what life is worth, you will look for your's on earth. Now you've seen the light. Stand up for your rights.
Get up stand up. Don't give up the fight.
Life is your right.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:20 amColonius, Man we need to talk this thing through. You are on the same track that I am. I absolutely agree. When I spoke of the roman republic, I was talking about the purpose, the goals, of it. If greedy little slimebags had not taken it to empire, it could possibly have achieved the goals it had. Unfortunately, greed, avarice and whatever vice prevented the republic from achieving true enlightmnet.
Unfortunately, anytime a society acquires an ability to provide for all, a few sees it as a way to grab what they can, out of greed, and they ruin it for the rest of us.
But man, you and I are looking for the same thing. It's amazing how you and I are really on the same wavelength.
do a search on youtube for "breeding ground for Authoritarianism". message me there.
There's still a chance that the American Dream can last to the end of time, and eventually benefit all human beings, but it will take us enlightened people a long time, and a very good plan to achieve that.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:42 amHas anybody checked to see if he got his law degree by correspondance course? Hamilton U maybe?
I personally think he got it as the prize in a crackerjacks box. That's why he has the smirk on his face all the time - fooling all these people into thinking he is a studied man of the law.
January 21st, 2007 at 8:35 amIt is time to charge all of the Bush administration with murder for the senseless killing of 3,000 plus United States soldiers. Now, not only is the agministration guilty of murder of our soldiers, they are also responsible for the death of 30,00 plus Iraqis. Congress needs to be charged with aiding a conspiracy to commit murder. To this day there is no proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destructuins, nor is there any proof yhat Bin Ladden was the brain child of the WTC. It is a known fact that Bush betrayed Bin Ladden a few years back on a Saudi Arabia deal that went sour.
I do not stick up for any actions of terror, but I will fight vitiously for any person that is being bullied, wrongfully accused, and standing their rightful grounds. The people of this country let this adminstration pick and choose who they wanted to go after without even so much as any solid physical evidence - all cicumsantial, shame, shame. Further more we have allowed this administration to evade our privacy, take away our constitutional rights, cost us billions of dollars in homeland security (what a joke) at the same time making selected few people rich to aid and abet their cause, shame, shame. And now we have an Attorney General who can not read and comprehend the Constitution of course not to say the majority of the judges in this country do not understand what it says and means. The Arabs/ Moslems have been fighting among their tribes for a thousand years and will continue to do so even if they are in a Democracy. That is their right and religion. We as the United States have no right to impose our values on them. If they want to have our values then they must make it happen on their own.
Than of course there is our up coming generation that does not even have a clue as to what the study of Problems of Democracy is; Who the first president of the US was; What is the capital of each and every state in the union are; That they along have the power to curb the crazy, illegal taxes that are bestowed on them and us; That the private sector persons of this country run this country, not the people in governmental and/ or police positions.
Wake Up general public of the United States of America. You are being eaten alived by a communist - dictatioral - king combination form of adminstration and congress. Get rid of all the party line politicians before it is to late; Quit killing yourselves by working two jobs to pay taxes; Quit sending your children to day care so both adults in the household can work to pay taxes; Raise your own children like the creator intended and teach them what real family and countrymen values are; Force all government out of the illegal taxing business; Learn and teach the real value of living a true free society as guarenteed by our constitution.
Remember electing to enter into a public sector life is volunteer, there are few or minimal fringe benifits, and they are never meant to be career positions. In a true free society government housing/ offices shall never be extravanant, they must live within there means. No state, county, township, city shall ever give up any land, property in a given area to any government entity with out the express permission of the people in that locality, government can not exercise eniment domain over property for it's use.
I demand our country back,
Outraged
January 21st, 2007 at 9:21 amI really don't understand just what the surprise is all about.
We here in Texas have realized for many years that habeas corpus is extinct!
I do not know of a single case where the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was acknowledged much less read/heard & granted.
Although individuals have been released shortly after a Petition for Writ was delivered to a judicial party, there was NEVER any direct action resulting from said delivery.
I have only been aware of, and paying close attention to, the actions of the Texas Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches since 1992. During that time I have witnessed, and been the recipient of, abuses of power from all three.
As "Waco", meaning the Branch Davidian Massacre, was a test of the mettle of the people, so has the perfidy of the Texas Government been a test of the ability to abuse the citizens.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, 9-11
With this scale of escalation I dare not consider what the next event may be! Crawl into your bunkers, close the water/air proof doors and hold onto your butts - it's going to get rough!
January 21st, 2007 at 9:27 amSo you've finally woken up America! We've been saying this about this present administation for the last 5 years.
Our first mistake was to let this president and his backroom boys get away with forcing his way into the presidency. The world sat back and nodded. The BIGGEST mistake was to actually vote him in the second time. The world then sat back and mocked!
And by the way, don't be suprised if all of us on this document get a knock on doors one night and get quietly taken away to be locked up without legal representation. THAT'S the power of the PATRIOT ACT... the suspension of the writ of Habeus Corpus... sadly THAT'S what 50% of this country voted for.
Monica Lewinsky was a nothing event... Now we have a real event... are YOU going to do something about it?
January 21st, 2007 at 9:49 amLook to Thailand, Venezuela, people. If your democracy is taken away, you have to take it back. TAKE IT BACK. (No, that doesn't mean vote democrat at the next election. That means TAKE YOUR F*CKING REPUBLIC BACK WITH YOUR OWN TWO HANDS).
January 21st, 2007 at 10:25 amThats ridiculous
January 21st, 2007 at 10:34 amYes, yes.. Ridiculous. What do you propose? Mobilise millions of democratic voters to vote Democrat in the 2008 election, on machines with no transparent source code, with no paper trail? On machines for which a number of individuals have already been indicted for electoral fraud? In electorates that have been redistricted and gerry-mandered so much that in some areas the disconnect between the will of the people and the election result would result in revolution in any truly 'civilised' nation?
Would you elect a house and a senate that would pledge to fight the fascism in office? Oh - yes, that's right you already have. But forgive me, did the Democrats not run on a campaign advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq? And they're doing a sterling job now, of supporting the new push for troops - contrary to their words, their actions are not those of a true 'opposition'.
Would you mount legal challenges in a court system that is so heavily corrupted and infiltrated with proxy agents of the Administration that "independent judiciary" ceases to mean a damn thing?
Would you go to the Police, and ask them to do their duty - to uphold the law, and arrest the entire Bush cabinet? In a society that has fallen into such a deep sleep that it's unpatriotic merely to openly champion the very ideals that the founding fathers carved in stone as the basis of your society? Would you risk your own arrest in doing so?
Would you just go on internet forums and leave comments bemoaning the lack of Habeas Corpus, and the bill of rights - just -hoping- that someone will fix it for you?
What exactly do you think is the best way to "democratically" remove a neo-fascist proto-dictator?
I'm all ears.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:36 amGonzalez is thee perfect example of out of touch American Bar attorneys, in action.
Have you read the writ Mr Gonzalez? No senor~, I haven't!
Truth is self evident MR. Gon ZAL EZ!!
January 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pmThis Gonzo clown is mediocre at best. How fitting he was appointed by a man with those same characteristics. Gonzo was appointed for his loyalty rather than his achievement's. He serves nobody except the chain of command.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pmFascism, Corporatism, Neo-feudalism, call it what you will... But, it's here and getting worse by the minute. Thanks to all the post 9/11 laws, and criminal activity at the highest level of government we are quickly becoming powerless to implement reform or change.
Obey the Lord's rule you lowly Vassals!
This Gonzo clown is mediocre at best. How fitting he was appointed by a man with those same characteristics. Gonzo was appointed for his loyalty rather than his achievement's. He serves nobody except the chain of command.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:23 pmFascism, Corporatism, Neo-feudalism, call it what you will... But, it's here and getting worse by the minute. Thanks to all the post 9/11 laws we are quickly becoming powerless to implement reform or change.
Obey the Lord's rule you lowly Vassals!
America can't redeem itself in the worlds eyes until some of these criminals get punished. Jail time, fines, etc, hit their pockets and hit em' hard. For this clown Disbarred and fined heftily. His next job should be sweeping the streets of his hometown, while the public pelt him with rotten tomatoes as they drive by. A drive by pelting. Humiliate the treacherous little weasel. Impeachment doesn't go way far enough. Impeachment, yeah I bet they are shaking in their boots. Its an American admin cycle. Like the Nixon years, all this will die down, years will pass. America will elect some cross eyed little twerp who you clearly wouldnt leave alone with your kids. Of course assuming he was ever elected, not necessary if your brother counts the votes in the state decider, in the land that champions democracy. Yeah we all choked on that one. Nearly as much as fires brought the towers down. It will all come full cycle again, only they will be better at it next time, you really might get a hitler. America land of the freak, home of the shamed.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pmBob,
I sent a message through YouTube and I'm not sure it went out -- I'm new to YT as of last month, and haven't been using it (I don't even remember setting up my account). We should beat around this Roman Empire stuff someplace else, I'm interested but don't want to burden the other readers here : )
Back to this thread: Tom, I really like your test of integrity -- would I leave this guy alone with my kids? LOL. No Way! Especially not Gonzales -- f*ck, what a creep! I'm not sure which "cross-eyed little twerp" you were referring to though -- Bush or Gonzales? They both fit the description. Remeber Zap Comics? Gonzales reminds me of The Checkered Demon for sure.
See ya all at Gitmo.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pmSadly, I don't think the AG is being an idiot. I think he's trying to be an incredibly strict constructionist, which isn't necessarily bad. But he's compounding with the belief that "everything not explicitly permitted is prohibited," whereas I (and apparently many of the other posters) come down on the side of "everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted." That's a fundamental difference in points of view, and one that needs to be politicked so that we can convince others, but I don't know that I'd necessarily call him an idiot. I just disagree with him, vehemently.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 amPeople like Gonzalez make Nixon and his cohorts look like saints.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 amAnother example why Gonzalez' political enemies call him "Torture Gonzalez."
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:39 amDid anybody actualy read Constitution?
Article 1 section 9 waives Habeas Corpus for "Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety". "Invasion of public safety" is not the same as Invasion, as Senator presents it. So Senator is mistaken and Gonzales is basicaly correct.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm[...] b. lock him in a port-a-potty because the constitution doesn’t guarantee his right of habeas crapus [...]
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm[...] Think Progress » [...]
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 pm(about Comment from Bob #194.)
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 pmThank you for stating this Bob. One of the things people DONT UNDERSTAND, is that ALL political parties are on the same side. This means Liberal and RightWing are actually working together for the same result....
Total disillusion of the people. All this political crap is merely a means of keeping us distracted and divided amongst each other (spinning around and around) while they accomplish what they're after behind the scenes.
This has been going on for years and years and is just now a 10,000 foot snowball rolling down hill.
Do some research and you'll find that most of the last 20 presidents we've had are actually bloodline relatives of the Royal Family of England. This is why we roll out the Red Carpet for them.
Their plan is working quite well now, don't you think??
You didn't really think that lil ole England would just let sleeping dogs lie, did you? We embarrased the hell out of them globally and told them to go *%&$ themselves, then developed our own monetary system (which really pissed them off) and it goes on and on...... hm, queen mom was not happy
And take the time to investigate the Vatican to (whom England works for). Man is that some scary *&$#!!! They seem to have more power than GOD LOL ;)
And please don't be fooled by Hillary. She wants to take away our second ammendment right.
But, that could be because Bill comes from the Royal Bloodline too....
hm.......
All the info is out there. PLEASE, as american citizens, before they take our interenet away, take some time and READ READ READ, CLICK CLICK CLICK, READ, READ, READ.
Ignorance is what got us here to begin with. Now is not the time to trust that someone else will take care things for us.
All I can say is that it is time to Impeach both Bush & Cheney. Why won't the Democrats get serious and that this issue up???
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 pmWhen asked, Gonzales didn't know whether his grandparents immigrated to the US legally. One would think such milestone questions would be easily answered. It may explain our open border with Mexico mentality, and why no pardon is still forthcoming for the border patrol agents who shot an illegal from Mexico drug smuggler.
Yep, the spawn of "illegals" keep taking and taking in more ways than one, like one of them denying the existance of our habeas corpus rights. What a supreme blunder by the attorney general of the U.S. to say that it is not a right in the constitution. What law school did this misfit go to?
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 amGONZALES WAS COUNSEL FOR ENRON for a period of approximately 13 years. He was partner in a Houston law firm that represented energy giant Enron Corp.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138160,00.html
GONZALES RELATIONSHIP TO HALLIBURTON
Making the Gonzales conflict even more controversial is the fact that before being appointed to office, Gonzales had been a partner at the law firm Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P. in Houston which had Halliburton as a major client. And Gonzales worked in the section where Halliburton was represented where he had a strong relationship with the firm.
http://www.knowthecandidates.org/ktc/BushGang/albertogonzalesexpose.htm
GONZALES WAS COUNSEL FOR HENRY LEE LUCAS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51773-2005Jan5
In 1995, a one-eyed drifter named Henry Lee Lucas was headed for execution by injection in a Texas prison for the murder of an unnamed woman, one of hundreds he confessed to killing in a crime spree lasting more than a decade.
The task of recommending whether then-Gov. George W. Bush should grant a reprieve or commute Lucas's death sentence fell to Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush's counsel. In a memo to Bush dated March 13, 1995, Gonzales marshaled a case for Lucas's guilt. He noted that Lucas had given a sheriff a drawing of the victim, and attached a record of Lucas's eight other Texas murder convictions, each of which led to lengthy or life prison sentences.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 am"#
Did anybody actualy read Constitution?
Article 1 section 9 waives Habeas Corpus for “Rebellion or Invasion the public Safetyâ€. “Invasion of public safety†is not the same as Invasion, as Senator presents it. So Senator is mistaken and Gonzales is basicaly correct.
Comment by Lenny — January 22, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
"
Actually you are the one who didn't.
Clause 2: 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 the Senator is correct.
"Why won’t the Democrats get serious and that this issue up???"
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 amThey are the other side of the same coin. I support Ron Paul, he's pro-constitution, anti-war with Iran and the next, anti-FED anti FTAA/NAFTA and the like, and supports a new investigation of 9/11, so I'd say he's the only pro-Usa among all these elitist bastards.
You can clearly see the genius of our founding fathers. From the grave they are protecting us from these killers. Gonzales and the rest of this administration want to create a police state where bush is the dictator for ever , under the grounds that elections can not be held because the country is under martial law. This argument by Gonzales is ridiculous, of course the senator is correct.
I agree with Emmanuel Goldstein Ron Paul is the only one I would vote for period .
aj
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 pmI don't claim to be a constitutional scholar, but it is my understanding that the "constitution" that we are referring to here is "The Constitution of the United States of America," and, as such, it addresses the role of the government of the United States in protecting and defending the rights of citizens of the United States of America (and *not* the rights of non-citizens). The opening statement of our constitution explicitly states:
If non-Americans value the same kind of rights that we do, they can damn-well fight for their rights in their own countries (or legally emigrate to the U.S.) While we do *recognize* the inalienable rights of ALL humans, it is *not* our obligation to secure the rights of every human on the planet. We can (and should) provide the moral support (and lead by example) to any people struggling for change in their countries, but again, we have NO obligation to provide non-American citizens with protection of their rights.... Least of all, citizens from countries that acknowledge no human rights whatsoever -- individuals who are explicitly dedicated to the destruction of the very concept of the "rights of man."
The fact that the protections guaranteed in our Constitution applies to AMERICAN citizens is reinforced, I believe, by these words from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
Non-citizens provide no consent, therefore the "just powers" of the institution of *our* government are *not* dedicated to securing *their* rights.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pmThere seems to be another misunderstanding here about the duty of the Attorney General.
The AG does NOT represent the interests of the people, he represents the STATE. His job is to defend the government against all comers to protect the government. That means YOU! ! ! are his sworn enemy! @ ! @ ! @ !
The President has sworn to 'protect' the constitution which means that he is NOT to suggest amendments NOR to act against it.
Oh well, judging from the way Bush reads a school book, he doesn't know how to read so he can't be held responsible for not following the U.S. Constitution, now can he?
The current AG is just putting a face on the fraud so that everyone will have a specific target for their hate and disgust.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 pmWEBMASTER: W H Y did you just remove my comment, #277???? Is that *YOUR* democracy in action???! Too vitriolic for you??? Truth hurts....Run along now and play nice with DHS.....
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 pmOne clarification - the right of Habeus Corpus can only be suspended by Congress under the conditions listed in the Constitution. It CANNOT be suspended legally by the President or any member of his (or her?) administration....
January 24th, 2007 at 12:07 amBIG BROTHER LOVES YOU
January 24th, 2007 at 12:52 amWAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
Alberto is not fit to perform the duties of the job appointed him. He should be fired and not given any information about who accused him of job-unworthiness, just sweep him and his things out of his office clean. Don't tell him why. He doesn't have "the right" to know.
January 24th, 2007 at 1:30 amThe United States was founded by white slave owners. The United States has a “Ruling Class Minority†that allows the majority to serve it in exchange for order. Go on and believe what you will yet the facts are clear that the majority has been divided and conquered long ago. Here the debate continues about what should be done. On C-Span the debate is over and the Constitution has been retired.
January 24th, 2007 at 10:22 amAs the number of humans on the globe quickly approaches 7B our ability to be taken seriously by the rest of the group becomes more and more muted. The majority has no method available to unify and the topic of Habeas Corpus (the video above) is being broached since the majority would need to unify and the powers that be would consider that as a “Revolt!†Since we are at war and congress has already granted the Executive branch w/ all the power it needs to do whatever it takes insure national security suspending Habeas Corpus is a done deal.
You and I for the moment can chat about this and that so long as we fail to “Unify†and “Organizeâ€. Several posts from this one an individual will manage to obfuscate what is going on by debating the Constitution. The lion share of the population want out of the war and require government reform. Some will protest and more debates will surface. The sad fact is that we are for the most part are sheep and do what we are told. The tree of liberty has no rebellion to shake the rotted apples from it. There is no “National Strike†being called because the majority has been divided.
The majority is made of non English speaking immigrants, the poor and disenfranchised, the sick, the weak, the abused, the depressed, the hungry, the illiterate, the old, apartment renters, single parents, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. We are so busy fighting each other for the most part that it is not likely that the majority will unite in the face of a tyrant.
The Constitution makes it quite clear that should things get out of sorts it is not wrong to get some tar and feathers together and take care of things. The USA is crippled by fear at this point and the longer it remains that way the greater the fear becomes. If this nation were a business we the stock holders would have replaced the CEO and his staff years ago.
I wonder how many of you realize, that as you look back across global history, the major factor that crept up on civilization was and is oil? WW1 was about oil discovered in what was then known as Mesopotamia and now known as Iraq. WW2 is interesting since it is the one the Bush family fingerprint brightly appears on. How many of you asked, “How is it that a failed wallpaper contractor was able to become a dictator?†If you knew that Prescott Bush and another “Angel†loaned Hitler the millions (considered a lot of cash back then) needed to create the “Gestapo†you might find it odd.
There is so much more lightning yet for me it is enough to know that history repeats itself and people are most likely going to go extinct.
I'm ready to take the day off and march in the streets. I thought Cheney was the worst but now I see he has a little friend. TREASON is the right word for this.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:45 amOur politicians and courts are currently trying to completely shred the Bill of Rights; taking away our right to privacy, allowing our mail and our phone conversations to be monitored. Our right to habeus corpus or the right to appear in court and know what we are being charged with is also being attacked. Without heabus corpus we could be locked up in jails indefinitely without any charges. Every citizen of the United States must be calling, writing letters, seeing their state and federal representatives and senators; protesting these deliberate attempts to take away our personal freedoms or sovereignty. We must consistently write letters to the editor encouraging other citizens to join in this fight to preserve our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
January 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pmOur problem is also that we have been brainwashed to believing that the United States is a democracy. A democracy is a government by government giving certain rights and privleges to its citizens. Thus what government gives government can take away. Our government as established by our Founding Fathers is a REPUBLIC where the citizens are the government and they delegate certain rights and responsibilites to the government. Citizens are in charge of their government. They elect representatives and senators to represent what they want and not the reverse. Our founding fathers established this nation "the Republic" to be "one nation under God with liberty and justice for all" Be wary of politicians who carry out a subversive world government agenda under the rationale of "democracy."
January 24th, 2007 at 2:05 pmObviously.
The Constitution is, at its core, an organization document for our Government, and a list of proscribed actions of our Government. So, when Article I, Section 9 says, "the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended," because it does not include "for citizens," the proscription applies to all actions of our Government against any person, regardless of the immigration, geographic or nationality status. This was the crux of the Supreme Court's decision regarding the Gitmo prisoners-- the one that Gonzo said he hadn't read recently, and I doubt that you have ever read (but I have).
You may be correct when you say, "it is *not* our obligation to secure the rights of every human on the planet (sic)," but you must remember that it is our Constitutional obligation not to infringe on the "unalienable rights" of other people.
January 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pmBesides his views on torture and Habeas Corpus, I have another problem with Gonzalez -- he, like Ashcroft, spends too much time defending GWB. The fact is, he is NOT the Presidents council. He represents the US, and should be working for us, not George.
January 24th, 2007 at 3:56 pmI think that this exchange defines the current administration's strategy to expand the powers of the Executive. They seem to habitually engage in the classic negotiation tactic: Demand more than you want, in order to ensure that you'll at least get what you want, and possibly more.
They also use the tactic of "walking away", expressed in signing statements and classifying everything as secret. They seem to believe that they can do whatever it is that they want, in the way that corporations claim rights in order to at least temporarily have their way. Right up to and including the lawsuit, whether public or private.
January 24th, 2007 at 4:40 pmI agree with #288. And it's all in tiny moves on a massive, unprecedented front. And it's working. We've lost the 1000-year-old right of habeas corpus and we're only writing blogs. Not actually doing something. Just expressing written outrage among our friends.
They have us right where they want us.
January 24th, 2007 at 10:55 pmI demand a public apology...
Welcome to the Police State
January 24th, 2007 at 10:58 pmWhere is the full transcript of ALL the testimony? The subject of the committee that day was foreign prisoners taken on foreign soil. It appears that Gonzales was tripped up in questioning but I don't believe the partial excerpt above amounts to anything so dire as presented.
ThinkProgress claims "full disclosure" but so far this is PARTIAL disclosure. Has anyone found the full transcript??? I want to see the context.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:05 pmAnd the doubt is dispensed just as predicted… thank you for being that poster! The man said what he said! He claims there is no right to habeas corpus he also makes it clear that regardless of what the Supreme Court says those in GITMO are not going any place!
January 25th, 2007 at 6:35 pmQuoting from the original post:
Note that habeas is referred to as a right, yet the Constitutional quote calls it a privilege. McJoan managed to contradict hisself/herself in the same sentence.
Gonzales is correct.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:09 amThere's a big difference between rights and privileges.
Hmm...I guess the old adage about competence and intelligence not being necessary for advancement holds true for yet another member of the Axis of Stupidity...you know...."shit floats"...
January 26th, 2007 at 11:20 amSemantic and irrelevant. But ok, let's use your word 'privilege' for the sake of argument. Where and by whom is the 'privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus' granted?
Here's your answer-- "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That is, our founding fathers believed that it was self-evident-- obvious to common sense-- that all people are born with these rights-- sorry, 'privileges,' and that the most important of these, habeas corpus, deemed important enough that a proscription to its suspension be included in the body of the Constitution.
That is, it has not been granted by the Government, but by our Creator, and as such, the Government has been specifically proscribed from taking it away from us except under the case of rebellion or invasion.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThe opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
~Marcus Aurelius
January 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmAre you referring to me?
The key is context. Where is the complete transcript from the committee? The subject of the committee that day was, as best I can find, the Military Commissions Act being revisited. The context was non-US citizens, which courts they would have access to. Since when do military prisoners have access to our civil court system?
January 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pmYes the comment was directed to you.
Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’
There is no context, frame or point for the Attorney General to utter those words. The Supreme Court determined that holding prisoners the way it is being done at GITMO is against the Constitution.
You digress into who should have access bla bla bla. The Supreme Court says that the GITMO detainees need their day in court or be released.
Your point goes against the Constitution as it decrees that, "All men are created equal!"
The key is not context! The point is that you’re being deceptive and are helping to spread the Attorney General BS by using the word "CONTEXT"!
The statement, "There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution" is not a fact but Gonzales does all that he can to make that true. Joseph Goebbels wrote the book on propaganda and group-think. Here we see more propaganda being flung and sorry to say you’re context bit furthers us to the abyss.
January 26th, 2007 at 4:50 pmI will set aside the ramifications of “The Police State†and just talk about GITMO for this moment.
January 26th, 2007 at 5:24 pmYou imply that holding prisoners for years on end with no legal advice, no charges and no communication is an act of a country that practices what it preaches?
Imagine one day they hold you for several years w/ out charges. That is not pleasant nor is it based in law. Should protests be labeled as “REVOLTS†then anyone can be held for any reason at any time for any length of time by any regulator in any location including GITMO. Due process lost moves us from a civil society to a fascistic land of horrors. Due process lost allows US soldiers to torture detainees and prisoners with impunity.
Bring the “Police State†home and anyone can be tortured for any reason. The method is to repeat lies over and over again, once repeated enough the lies become truth. This is all part of what is known as group think. Everything here at “HOME†is watched, monitored, regulated and taxed. Our leaders are paranoid and will do all that is possible to prevent a REVOLT.
I do know things are getting more and more repressing, expensive and harsh. We view violence daily and it is part of the norm. Is this the way we want to live?
Is it even living?
January 26th, 2007 at 5:31 pmThis is absolutely amazing.
Handy Andy confirms that he is here to be rude:
There most certainly is context. In this case both the subject matter and the setting. The subject matter was foreign prisoners, fighting in manners inconsistent with the Geneva Convention (meaning they are either spies, saboteurs or the like), caught on foreign soil. The setting was a rather hostile Senate committee hearing. Gonzales had made it clear that the intent is NOT to deny fair trials, the intent is to clarify the manner of trials.
This manner of trial issue has come up previously to the Supreme Court. For example the ex parte Quirim case during WWII. It was decided against the defendents, six of whom were executed after an attempted sabotage mission on US soil.
The Supreme Court specifically requested clarification to the manner of trial for the prisoners at Gitmo. The Military Commissions Act was created at their request.
Now for more rudeness from Handy Andy:
That is simply rude.
See above. The Supreme Court requested Congress explicitly create the court system to try these detainees. Bottom line--the will get their day in court.
As a practical matter why would we release enemy prisoners while a war is still underway? That is the absurdity of the habeas corpus issue. How many German/Japanese prisoners were ever granted trials? Very few, mostly they were kept until the end of the war, checked for complicity in war crimes, and normally released then.
Not at all. Non-citizens aren't covered by the Constitution, other than in special particular circumstances. Prisoners of war most certainly are not.
The key most certainly IS context. You merely want to exaggerate something beyond which it was ever intended.
My goodness, what melodramatic nonsense. You are the political propagandist here.
How about doing some original THINKing, that would be PROGRESS.
January 26th, 2007 at 5:47 pmYou’re defending an individual who is most likely corrupt by allowing him his "Context". Your debating allows you to move the heat away from what it needs to be thrust upon. You support the spread of propaganda and disinformation.
The Supreme Court decided the GITMO matter months ago. The Exec branch has decided to do as it pleases. In the meantime nothing has changed. It also happens that some detainees stand falsely accused of who knows since actual charges have not been pressed.
I struck chords in you and the best you can do is go on about how rude you think I am. Here in the court of public opinion you have decided to defend the opposition. He is a lawyer and so then he should be able to do that for himself. By his statements he has indicted himself and his pirate party by attempting to secrete more power to the Exec.
Make no mistake about it when you hear, "There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution" that goes in all of our faces. There is NO CONTEXT that can account for an IMPLICIT statement as such. He said, "NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" No is not maybe or possibly and thusly leaving the entire matter for continued debate.
Those that have written it over and over here all know that OUR CREATOR (you can debate GOD all you want) has created all men equally (including blacks, Hispanics, women, etc.) and given our government limited power. Here you are on the side of a LAWYER defending his though process and CONTEXT..........
I may at times in life be rude (this is not one of those times) but at least if I'm wrong about this guy I can live w/ it provided he gets gone. If his statements are expressions of his true view and he is not removed then I pity US.
January 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pmThe Constitution recognizes the right of habeas corpus and other rights it makes direct reference to as preexisting, but does not straightforwardly grant itself, as therefore inherent, unalienable universal rights exceeding the authority of government to grant based on the foregone conclusion that we are born free, as a matter of nature (like the other animals, so to speak, unless subjugated or artificially constrained), in the least, and that these rights preexist by grant of "our Creator." This is why the Constitution prescribes that "congress," the supreme law maker of the land, "shall pass no law," in paraphrase, "restricting (or abridging) freedom of the press..., the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of grievances..., respecting the establishment of religion or the free excerise thereof..., the right of a speedy trial and right to confront one's accusers...," and so forth and so on, but does not explicitly grant them itself. While the Constitution, does not bear witness to a G/god or G/gods, it does state that these rights, subsumed in the explicated rights of "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness," 1) are "unalienable rights" granted to all of us ("all men," where until the relatively recent womens' equality movement, the words "man" and "men" were used as generic common nouns flexibly or interchangeably applicable to either the male gender or both genders in all conventional publications in Anglo-Saxon nations), and 2) in the Constitution's words "We hold these truths to be self evident that 'all men are created equal' (under the law and in the regard of the Creator)," it clarifies that these inherent, unalienable rights are granted to us "by our 'Creator'" -- even the most stalwart scientifically minded atheist must admit that something cannot come from nothing and that the universe was precipated, in the big bang, and that something had to precipitate it, whether the universe and its precipitation were preceded by a vacuum, oblivion, or a mystery something, and that this precipitating source of material existence or the universe, divine or not, had to be of a G/god-like or G/godly consequence, power, action, effect or impact in its wholistic creative product, the universe or totality, and that it was/is our Creator as we are an element of the universe or totality. These inherent, unalienable rights are our democratic rights -- the rights of every and all citizens that are not conferred by the citizen majority or government nor can be taken away by these, with the exception of the suspension of habeas corpus by the federal government in the emergency of grave national violence and anarchy. The framers of the Constitution recognized that the right of habeas corpus might need to be mitigated in times of domestic rebellion or invasion, "as necessary," when exceptionally grave, massively uncontrollable, circumstances compelled.
Alberto Gonzales and John Yu, like Bush and Cheney, are financial, status and power-class Americans and not Constitutional Americans. They are lip-service patriots only. There are many native sons and daughters in America and immigrants to America who are financial, status and power or benefactor-committed Americans first, if not exclusively, and who have little or no genuine allegiance to the Constitution except for when and to the extent it serves themselves.
Alberto Gonzales is the intellectual gunman-lackey of his pay master and feudal lord/s and is a legal nit picker and sophist. He has no rightful place in a position of public trust and service in Constitutional America as he is grotesquely incompetent and derelict in complying with his sworn oath of office "to protect (uphold) and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."
The President of the U.S. is the commander in chief of the armed forces, subject to federal Constitutional and statutory law, the supreme law of the land. He is not the commander in chief of the Congress and Supreme Court, the co-equal branches of the federal government, nor of the governors and state governments or the civilian population of America but is the chief executive and administrator for implementation and administration of Constitutional and federal statutory law legislated by Congress and adjudicated by the Supreme Court, and for administration of the offices and duties of the executive branch of the federal government. The President does not have discretionary dictatorial or regal authority that overrides Constitutional and federal statutory law.
Praise be Senator Arlen Specter!, for protecting and defending the Constitution and the democratic rights of the citizenry, although I'm not a Republican nor religious. I also commend Republican Senator Chuck Hagel for being a Constitutional and ethical U.S. senator as much as I do most Democratic Party members of congress for the same qualities. Public Domain. From Oakland, CA
January 27th, 2007 at 7:05 amWow. So pointing out what a member of the Bush Regime said is "melodramatic nonsense?" Your statement is positively Rumsfeldian.
Here's the crux of your 'context'-- the prisoners at Gitmo are either criminal prisoners, and as such, have the right of habeas corpus, or they are prisoners of war, and as such, are subject to the Geneva Convention. Which is it?
January 27th, 2007 at 9:45 amAs we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing from Donald Rumsfeld
January 27th, 2007 at 11:21 amThat Gongales; He's a greasy little communist prick. Oh yes, and a traitor too. Time to sweep these parasites into the gutter where they belong.
January 28th, 2007 at 9:30 pmReal low-level discussion. The name-calling is pathetic, always lurking skin-deep from the typical, high-posting members here.
I'd suggest you all go look up the ex parte Miller and ex parte Quirim cases to the Supreme Court. The practical issues of allowing habeas corpus trials for prisoners of war are immense. Or, if you think the Iraq/Afghan detainees aren't conventional prisoners of war, the same issue is still present. The war-on-terror prisoners, by any name you care to euphamize them, if they aren't associated with a bona fide nation, then they are more akin to pirates, who also have no claim to civil trial.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pmdp, you used a word that throws a wrench in the works...
DETAINEES
GITMO DETAINEES are not even prisoners they are simply being detained till ????????????????????
As far as the Court of Supremacy is concerned these DETAINEES need to be charged or released and the EXEC refuses. I'm not sure if the RED CROSS has been allowed to visit with them my understanding is still NO.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:39 pmI'm waiting for
"But the Constitution does not say we cannot suspend the right to [insert favorite right here] when we are at war, so therefore we can suspend it."
Some possible choices...
1. free speech
2. religion
3. the press
4. peacefully assemble
5. petition the government
6. right to bear arms
7. privacy (or not being searched without warrant)
8. double jeopardy
9. decline to testify against oneself
10. speedy and public trial
11. not enduring cruel and unusual punishment (perhaps this ones already gone missing...)
12. many of the other so-called "rights"
Same "logic" at work... thanks for clearing this all up, Alberto. I suppose this also means we can look at laws like this as well. ("The law does say we cannot do these things... but it didn't say doing them TOGETHER is unlawful. Just let my good friend, Alberto, tell you all about how this beautiful logic works...")
January 30th, 2007 at 1:18 amCorrection of posting 303: By the Constitution's cross reference to its mother, or foundational, document, the Declaration of Independence, our inherent, unalienable democratic rights, not straightforwardly granted by the Constitution that yet enumerates their existence and specifies that they may not be denied -- with a prohibition of the imposition of religion by government recognition -- are recognized as endowed by our Creator and thereby preexisting in the Declaration's language, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that 'among these' are the Rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuits of Happiness."
Incidentally the Declaration of Independence does acknowledge a G/god -- a nondenominational, nonscriptural G/god --, indeed genius Einstein's G/god in its first sentence's language, "....and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of 'Nature's God' entitle them...."
In the Constitution's first amendment passage stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof, or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for redress grievances, these rights as well as the other rights enumerated as already existing throughout the other amendments of the Constitution, but not straightforwardly granted by the Constitution, are recognized as preexisting, inherent, unalienable democratic rights, including that of the "privilege" (treated as a right or permanent protocol of basic fairness) of a writ of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution, which states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not suspended except in the cases of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety "may require it." This writ compels government authority detaining an individual to provide before a court the detained individual in order for the court to determine the legality of that individual's detention, at a minimum pursuant to amendments 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution. Inherent, unalienable democratic rights are based on the principles that we are born free as a matter of nature and by grant of our Creator and that legitimate government is based for its existence on the consent of the governed and that under such government we, collectively and individually, are entitled to unalienable fairness and due process of law. One may wonder how press (publication) can be a natural condition of people as is speech, religious or spiritual belief and practice, and gatherings to solve and resolve social, economic and political situations and circumstances. Press arose with cave painting, drawing, all forms of arts and crafts, design, planning and the invention and spread of writing and reading among humans, which are practicable or practiced among all races and societies of people however primative or advanced their living conditions.
Article 1, section 1 of the Constitution states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Public Domain
January 30th, 2007 at 7:13 amOk, I admit that I have not had time to read all of the comments, so I do not know if this has been covered, for sure. But, from what I have been able to read, it does not seem like it has, so here goes.
The last post was correct about the origingal intent of the Constitution.
However, The Constitution has been changed.
In the Original, men were created as equal to each other, but not to any other entity. They were Citizens of the States in which they were born, not the United States, which only existed by having been created by the States. To be a US Citizen was simply to be a Citizen of any of the States. Each State had totaly authority over who was or was not a Citizen of that State.
Then comes the 14th Amendment. Read it lately?
In this Amendment, suddenly it is switched. Persons become citizens of the US first and then of the State and the US has assumed the role of determining who they are.
Now go back up to Article IV. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." So, what is the distinction between "people" and "persons"? There is one. People were, "the Citizens of the various States", according to Black's Law 20 years ago. In Bouvier's it states that, "When the term "the people" is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise." But "persons" were the bodies of people. Or, persons could be other entities than people.
Let me quote Bouvier's again. "PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, whith all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. ... The term is hosever, more extensive than man. it may include artificial beings, as corporations, territoraial corporations, and freign corporations..."
Black's, "person. 2. The living body of a human being... 3. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. In this sense, the term includes partnerships and other associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated." Then Black's goes on to quote other sources, "So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a huan bing or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance and this is the exclusive point of view from which pesonality receives legal recognition."
In other words, the Attorney General considers us persons and Arlen Spector was talking about people.
Why? I don't know. But, maybe the General actually knows the law better than Spector. Or maybe they are both simply playing parts for your benefit. After all, they are on the same side. Bush helped Spector get his seat over a much more conservative man who was pro-life, while Spector is pro-abort. Bush helped Spector against a man who cared a lot more about the Constitution than Spector has ever shown himself to.
So, let's look at the idea that this guy we call a general of attorneys, ag, from now on, really understands today's law.
The Constitution said that the rights of people come from God. The 14th Amendment says that from them on, the rights of persons come from the government, the national government. Which persons, those born or naturalized in the US. That doesn't mean in one of the States, though they knew that most people would think it did. They were not subject to the jurisdiction of the national government back then. Jurisdition belonged to the People or States.
Let me quote the document, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;11--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.11 " This is Article III, Section 2.
Nowhere does it say that the People are under the jurisdiction of the federation government. No, we are under the jurisdiction of ourselves. The States are under our juridiction, collectively, and the federation is under the jurisdiction of the collective body of the States. That is the way our Constitutional government was created to work.
Remember The Declaration of Independence? "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" The founders believed that men were created to be free and that the only way they could be was if they were in charge of their government, that the government only got it's power by the fact that the People let it or gave it strength, and that these two principles were natural.
The 14th Amendment wasn't written for everyone. Only those who were under the jurisdiction of the federation government were made 14th Amendment citizens of that government. And they were persons, who were granted their "rights" by the government, NOT people who inherently had rights from God.
It was through later giving up our rights for priviledges like Social Security and Driver's Liscenses that we all, unknowlingly, gave up our natural rights to become citizens of the Federal Goverment who gives rights as it decides to whom it wishes.
So, God given Constitutional rights do not apply to us all. They only apply to those who love them enough to enforce their law in the Constitution against the people under it's jurisdiction, the federal employees. The law that applies to the rest of us is whatever the thugs in power say it is today according to Bush's decrees and whatever slime Congress can come up with. This ag knows exactly what he is talking about and just doesn't want to say enough to wake people up. If the gov has not expressly given you a right, then as far as they are concerned, you do not have it. They can take away any previously given any time they like. And Spector was playing the "good guy" for all of you to see, to keep you asleep.
Learn more about the Constitution by taking a course, there are many available. I'd list a few, but it would break the "terms of agreement" of the board. The good ones all point the people to one or two political parties which are not the Rep or Demo parties.
If you want to keep any form of freedom, you need to arm yourself by really coming to know Constitutional Law. It is the only way.
Sue
February 4th, 2007 at 2:35 amIt's no wonder that we can't get a grand jury to Investigate the building collapses on 911! If "they" can get away with murdering 2974 people, they can get away with anything!!! And someone made a ton of $$ in the process?? Kickbacks, anyone! Congress is guilty of a connspiracy to coverup murder! Watergate was just a dot(period) on the page of history, compared to this group! Dewey
February 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pmDewey, you act like this is the first time. The list is too long to print. They killed our own President, twice. They can and have done exactly as they have liked since 1913. But it didn't start there. They used, played upon, and stimulated the Civil War and owned the weapons industry clear back then. They owned the South before the war and would have taken over then, but Lincoln refused to borrow money from them to fight the war. He stopped them with the Civil War, he thought. So, they got rid of him. Kennedy was going to expose them and shut them down, too. He ordered the printing of our own money that would not be connected to the Fed. Res. That is why he is dead. The very same people brought down the twin towers. The people who actually profit from the Fed. Res. are those which own the central banks of almost every nation, all but those which do not allow usury.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:39 amFirst it is a privilege and not a right, while one must define their words to understand what one is talking about for a privilege is "civil" in its making and a "right" is substantive in man's nature, while a man of which I include woman is not a "person" by definition and is not subject to anything "civil" by the dogma of legislation or statute. As far as your A.G. goes he may understand this or may not and if he should be in the later he is a twit as most attorney's may well be, but it is just a job which most do not well undertake. As for attorney's are not lawyers and lawyers are not attorney's for the former is not the later and the later not the former for attorneys only practice "at" law not "in" law while in the former one is a ward of the court practicing a "privilege" not a "right".
February 14th, 2007 at 9:24 pmAh, yes, and attorney's should not be participating in our legislatures! See the Original 13th Amendment ! Sue
February 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pmWe should all be concerned about the direction our government is taking no matter what side of the isle we stand on. When the government is saying something as crazy as the constitution doesn't say what we all can read it says we should all be concerned. We are living in a country where government officials on both sides of the isle are regularly taking away or infringing upon rights granted by the constitution.
We can continue to sit here on our computers and complain or we can stand up and make a difference. Right wing or left wing we need to take our country back from the crazy and corrupt people on Capitol Hill.
Thanks for the point out on the original 13th Amendment Sue.
Michael
February 21st, 2007 at 2:00 amThe problem with impeaching people in the Bush administration is that they'll just be replaced by other people chosen by the Bush administration.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:57 am318 comments now. what has anyone done so far except talk?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pm[...] Oh, and here’s our Attorney General being an idiot: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/ [...]
March 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm[...] demand for their Presidents powers that would shock your average Monarch. Mainstream republicans abrogated habeas corpus, they invaded Iraq on a pack of cheap hoaxes, they demanded and abused the power to wiretap [...]
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 amPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 5:51 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 10:16 amVideo Advertising
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:37 pmAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 10:24 pmBig Tits Asian Boobs Lactating Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 1:21 amLinda Hamilton
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page?and have to say thanks. nice read?
March 16th, 2008 at 5:46 amcustody lawyers
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:46 pmAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 7:52 pmPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 8:54 pmUk Property
Hi - just wanted to say good design and blog -
March 17th, 2008 at 1:23 amAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 4:59 amTeen Girls Teen Titans Raven Tiffany Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 9:22 amTeen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pmKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 7:23 pmFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend's Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:27 pmChannel Ryan
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pmChanel Ryan Nude
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pmModel Ryan
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pmChanel Ryan
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pmRyan Channel
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pmChubby Grannies Mature Chubby Women Mature Lesbians Blonde Chubby Bbw Fat
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 12:33 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 4:06 amMilf Milf Ass Lesbian Milf
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 4:18 amDaria Werbowy Pic
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:03 pmDaria Werbowy
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:03 pmDarya Werbowy
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:03 pmDaria Polish Werbowy
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:03 pmJosh Hartnett
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:03 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 12:52 amEric
The term is used colloquially for any kind of Linkback. As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against comment
March 20th, 2008 at 5:59 amBoobs Monster Tits Big Tits Round Asses
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 10:57 amNot A Substitute For Legal Advice
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus - I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox - Just for your Info.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:58 pmSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pmFree Granny Porn Lesbian Milfs Free Mom And Son Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:36 pmRachelle Leah
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 21st, 2008 at 4:45 amTeen Girls Teen Mpeg Ass Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pmTeen Girls Teen Titans Hentai Teen Girls That Are Hot
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 amDaria Werbowy Josh Hartnett
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 amBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 pmPussy Closeups Shaved Pussy Mexican Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 pmCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 amBoobs Giant Tits Gigantic Boobs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 amChubby Grannies Chubby Granny Masturbate Pussy Big Tit Chubby Grannys
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:13 amTeen Girls Teen Chat Teen Panties
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pmbusiness objects report writing
As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against comment spam now exist in many weblog publishing systems.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 pmTeen Teens For Cash Nudist Teens
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:15 pmTeen Petite Teens Teen Titans Hentai
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 12:03 amJessie
I had to read your post twice. The idea you have just shared is really very good. Thanks for the post. Great stuff.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:15 amalaska usa federal credit union home
Your site regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me. I found it doing a search for %KEYWORD%.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:17 pmJessie
Web traffic can be increased by placement of a site in search engines and purchase of advertising, including bulk e-mail, pop-up ads, and in-page advertisements. Web traffic can also be increased by purchasing non-internet based advertising.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:22 ampenalty not filing taxes
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:12 amAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 2:11 amBecome A Foreign Exchange Student
Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it. ~ Robert A. Heinlein
March 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pmRaul
The more you are willing to accept responsibility for your actions, the more credibility you will have.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:20 amMerry
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:16 amHentai Hentai Misty Pokemon Naruto Hentai
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 2:39 pmdui lawyer
Most lawyers are in private practice, concentrating on criminal or civil law. In criminal law, lawyers represent individuals who have been charged with crimes and argue their cases in courts of law.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:14 amonline teen advice
"teen dating" tips
March 31st, 2008 at 9:08 amBoobs Unreal Boobs Boobies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 8:33 pmWeb Page Design Home Study Courses
Want to take a look at my web site, you will find it very interesting.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:35 amfree credit report online denied credit
Keep up the great posts, I check back frequently.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pmCar Loans
Car Loans are ordinarily consumers who like abrupt green along with basic method .
April 6th, 2008 at 7:16 amamerican express texas
April 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pmTurtle Dove
This is great
April 11th, 2008 at 8:36 amCracks House
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pmBest Business Home Opportunity Successful Christian Online
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. ~ Oscar Wilde
April 13th, 2008 at 6:19 pmRecord Tv Shows On My Computer
download satellite tv for pc
April 14th, 2008 at 7:12 am