Let's assume even in the most weasel lawyer wording, that somehow Gonzales makes sense about right not being enumerated in original Constitution...

Clearly, the are spelled out in 6th Amendment and why isn't this guy being tried for treason, or at least not upholding his oath of office? I guess the Justice Dept would have to pursue those charges.. *sigh*

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses."

The reasoning that because Habeaus Corpus can't be taken away from citizens doesn't necessarily imply everyone has it to NOT be taken away from them is a TERRIBLY FRIGHTENING thing to hear from the Attorney General of the U.S.A.

(wow, a triple negative in that last sentence)


There are numerous law opinion publishings about how lawyers for the Presidental cabinet have traditionally, until Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney's control, been asked by the White House and congress 'Will such-and-such policy in this bill be lawful?', to which the lawyer staff would express a yes or no, and why.

The current administration is the first to openly and consistently work in reverse, where staff lawyers are asked 'how can we make this action we are taking sufficiently lawful in the context of the War and 9/11', and in effect are asked to pervert the wording of laws with very apparent intentions to validate claims that domestic spying is not unconstitutional, jailing U.S. citizens without due process is fine if associated with terrorism, and on and on.


By the way, extending this comment beyond any reasonable length, I'd like to share that 'Habeas corpus' is named such for 'having the corpse' for which you are imprisoned (if accused of killing someone, or metaphorically if you're imprisoned for another crime) brought before court to determine if you are indeed lawfully being imprisoned, and not being detained for other reasons or sentenced by a court out of its jurisdiction.

In the context of our current war and fight against terrorism, Habeas corpus has been effectively suspended for any citizen of non-citizen with suspected terrorism ties. No court filing or hearing need be provided, the person can just be wisked away. ooh, theres a nice wikipedia article about this here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

When our government decides to start ridding us of age old writs, made by our fore fathers they ere in their ways.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff6.htm

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen,
against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may
assume." --Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.

Ironicly, it was so common sense and part of common law, that the founding fathers didn't bother describing H.C. in the Constitution because the Magna Carta had been around for so long. So Abu-Gonzo is just a huge moron to pretend, gee, it never says you actually have those rights.

I love his shit-eating grin as he dry-humps the US Constitution. This guy's a prize.

Well, there's a point to be made here but I'm not sure it's about HC, which remains alive and well even today.

But for the sake of argument, let's say HC was suspended.

How could anyone be shocked, when the American leftist idealogy is based on the Constitution being written on a dry-erase board (aka, a "living" document)?

A false interpretation of the Commerce Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause

resulted in FDR's welfare state, for better or worse.

To repeat: Habeus is alive and well. We all saw jerkoff Olbermann's cry for attention. It's wrong.

QM: read the MCA signed into law by your hero. Yes, habeas is at risk, especially for US citizens. Don't you worry when the head of the Justice Dept thinks that Geneva is quaint, and HC isn't explicitly stated, so you don't have those rights... You just are protected from them being taken away.. but since you don't have them, it's irrelevant.

You are all over the place. Who cares about FDR.. And how is the Constitution a dry erase board? Oh yeah, Abu Gonzo Gonzales is all about wiping his ass with it. And Bush seems to ignore it and not think it applies to him. I can't see how left means, less Constitution. I think you have it backwards... Some people still believe in rights of citizens. The current Executive Branch has complete disregard for any citizen rights. You have no right to privacy, you have no right to private email, phone calls, heck postal mail. You can be spyied upon without a warrant, you can have sneak and peak searches without notification. You could be put in a van and shuttled off to Gitmo, without EVER having a trial, or charges brought. And only the President can decide who is know Gitmo-worthy. Read the MCA, and start realizing how wrong you are, as usual.

The Chicken Littles on all sides have been crying about the end of freedom since 1776.

Hasn't happened yet.

And the libs dare to accuse conservs of fear-mongering...

I'm sorry, but this guy is a piece of garbage. I've never seen him say anything that was believeable or commendable. If video of this exists, I'd love to see it.

Oh, and how exactly do you suspend something that doesn't exist? The very statement is founded upon the assumption that it (HC) is, in fact, a right all people enjoy.

What a tool...

yeah, its pretty ridiculous logic. There is no express granting of Habeaus Corpus... don't pay any attention to that law that says Habeaus Corpus should never be suspended, it must have been a typo.

*lies from gonzales, as always.

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by gwiz665.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.