Stupid Attorney General Tricks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


farglebargle -> Stupid Attorney General Tricks (1/19/2007 5:43:47 PM)

The setup:

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.”

The Punchline:


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.




WyrdRich -> RE: Stupid Attorney General Tricks (1/19/2007 5:55:17 PM)

       It simply isn't possible for the Attorney General to say "Well, the Supreme Court really stepped on their dicks with that decision," no matter how badly he wants to.




UtopianRanger -> RE: Stupid Attorney General Tricks (1/19/2007 6:19:05 PM)

Who woulda thought we'd one day be reading an egregious exchange like that from a guy who's supposedly in charge of protecting our constitutional rights. A few noted legal scholars have said that the recently enacted ' Military commissions act ' can essentially turn every citizen into a non-citizen and then an enemy combatant.



- R




FirmhandKY -> RE: Stupid Attorney General Tricks (1/20/2007 4:51:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

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.”


So ... can someone tell me the difference between a "Privilege" and a "right"?

FirmKY




farglebargle -> RE: Stupid Attorney General Tricks (1/20/2007 5:08:25 AM)

I think Al's biggest point is that he is "So Smart, He'll Cut Himself".

You're right about the Privilege thing.

Rights come from Our Creator. There aren't Writs just floating about naturally. From a "Strict, Legalese" point of view he's got a point.

The use "Right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus", is not PRECISELY correct. However, it's an essential part of the Liberty Right referenced in the Declaration of Independence, and it's suspension so infrequent, it's common referred to that way.

However, he gets lost on the trivia.

quote:


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.


At that point Gonzales looked like a total fucking idiot.

quote:


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?


Now here's that "Lower Case" "right" usage again.

GOZNO: "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."

Hmm... So I guess Gonzo IS saying there IS a constitutional right. He's discussing that the supremes discussed it.

Why is Al being evasive?





Zensee -> RE: Stupid Attorney General Tricks (1/20/2007 11:07:05 AM)

What Al is saying is, if you don't have something to begin with you can't take it away. Obviously the framers of the Constitution sought to affirm the absence of any right or privilege of Habeas Corpus.

(Oh shit. That almost makes sense!) Do you guys need a new A.G.?

Z.




thompsonx -> RE: Stupid Attorney General Tricks (1/21/2007 4:21:26 PM)

To paraphrase old Bill "A facist thug by any other name would still be the AG"
thompson




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125