According to this article, our esteemed Attorney General of these United States is both ignorant of the US Constitution and incapable of following basic logic.
From the article:
For the record, here is the definition of Habeas Corpus, from FindLaw.com:
Article I, Section 9, Phrase 2 of the US Constitution states (also from FindLaw.com):
"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."
I know of no Rebellion nor Invasion. Even ignoring that, Gonzales is trying to claim that there is no assurance of Habeas Corpus.
Sounds like he needs to go back to law school and brush up on his Constitutional Law!
From the article:
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.”
For the record, here is the definition of Habeas Corpus, from FindLaw.com:
Medieval Latin, literally, you should have the body (the opening words of the writ)
: any of several writs originating at common law that are issued to bring a party before the court
esp
: "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum" in this entry
habeas corpus ad subjiciendum
[-'ad-seb-'ji-se-'en-dem, -'ji-she-; -'äd-sûb-'yi-ke-'en-dûm]
New Latin, literally, you should have the body for submitting
: an extraordinary writ issued upon a petition challenging the lawfulness of restraining a person who is imprisoned or otherwise in another's custody
(called also the Great Writ)
Article I, Section 9, Phrase 2 of the US Constitution states (also from FindLaw.com):
"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."
I know of no Rebellion nor Invasion. Even ignoring that, Gonzales is trying to claim that there is no assurance of Habeas Corpus.
Sounds like he needs to go back to law school and brush up on his Constitutional Law!
Tags: