Okay, this really PISSES ME OFF!

[draconis]

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:

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!

Comments

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've run into the "Mississippi Virgin Syndrome" before, in a book called "Southern Ladies and Gentlemen" by Florence King, although she called it something like the Southern Self-Rejuvenating Virgin. She then goes on to list all the reasons why it didn't really happen, and why she is therefore still a virgin. The list includes such things as:

We weren't in a bed.
I was drunk.
I didn't have all my clothes off.
He didn't have all his clothes off.
He didn't tell me he loved me.
He didn't tell me his name.
I didn't tell him my name.
He didn't have an orgasm.
I didn't have an orgasm.
Well... not really.
It happened in New York.



Although these are not nearly so bad as the one lady I heard about who would use an alum-laced solution to cause herself to tighten up, then claim with each new boyfriend that she was a virgin. Unfortunately, she slipped up at one point. She dated this one fellow, broke up with him, and then later got back together with him. She remembered that they'd dated before, but not that they'd slept together, so when she tried to claim that she was still a virgin....


I'm with you -- 2008 can't get here soon enough for me.

[mzlizzy.livejournal.com]

I love the list! I'll have to look for that book.

Another one of her stories included the roommate who 'flavored' peas with Crisco because 'it's just like bacon fat.'