Do you know US citizens have no Habeas Corpus protection?

Question

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said that American citizens do not have any protection under Habeas Corpus.

Gonzalez said there is nothing in the constitution giving citizens the protection of HB, and that the only mention of HB is the two conditions under which it can be suspended, invasion and revolution.

This logic left even the Republicans on the committee wide-eyed and stammerring. Sen Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked the AG if he was saying the government can take something away they dont have. Gonzalez repeated that there is no mention of citizens being protected bt HB, only when it can be taken away.

HB is the oldest concept in western law, going back to the Magna Carta. It prevents the govt. from picking you up, throwing you in jail, and keeping you as long as they want and not having to explain it. It prevents a dictatorship. And this guy says it doesn't exist.

At least he's showing us what Republicans are about.

Answer 1

That is the sickest thing I've ever heard.

All Hail King George Dub and his court jester, Gonzo (from Sesame Street?)!

YEEEES!

Answer 2

I had to wait a few minutes for the room to stop spinning on this one.

You have a knack for riling up the natives don't you? You know damn well that Habeas Corpus is not an enumerated right. Everything Gonzalez said was 100% accurate.

Either you are not able to comprehend the complexities of American law or you are a very deft operative for the left, perhaps both. Lawyers parse words. It is their job. The Attorney General was being clear and unambiguous. The politicians should have taken notes on how to do it.

The Constitution does not enumerate Habeas Corpus. Its mention is only the circumstances during which it may be suspended. Exactly what Gonzalez said. The contents of the Constitution were painstakingly selected for a reason. The left has consistently tried to insert nonexistent rights into the Constitution for the better part of a century via the courts. They seem to have decided that actually doing it the way our founding fathers designed was just too onerous.

Gonzalez did not deny the existence of Habeas Corpus nor the legality of it as you have implied. He made a statement that was completely accurate. Ask any Constitutional Law professor worth his salt and he will say the same. That same professor will also tell you that Habeas Corpus is not the oldest concept in western law. It is a well established and long standing principle but not the oldest concept in western law. I am certain that "Thou shall not kill" predates it.

This response will undoubtedly draw the ire of the uninformed but it is the truth.

Answer 3

It's critical. The right to Habeus Corpus is so well established that it seldom has to be used to criminal cases. I was appointed to do Habeus Corpus cases by our local Judge about 25 years ago and used it frequently in the early 1980's. The sheriff would approach the Judge and tell him that a lower court had incarcerated someone because they couldn't pay a fine, which is unConstituational. The Judge brought me into his office and taught me how to do a Habeus Corpus case and them gave me 10 or 12 cases. The lower court judges were not lawyers and were doing the "30 days or a fine" type of sentencings. All my Writs of Habeus Corpus were granted and the judges learned to quit jailing people who were indigent. One interesting aspect about Habeus Corpus is that I've seen it used in child custody/denial of visitation cases much more recently and haven't see it used much in my state for criminal cases in 20 years. Even though I don't see it used much anymore doesn't mean it isn't needed. Other counties and other states still have to use it frequently. I do think it can be problematic to have lower court judges who are not attorneys serve in the judiciary just because they can win an election. Our Judges who serve in the real courts in my state are appointed on merit and run in non-partisan retention elections every 6 years. They have to get a super-majority to be retained.

Answer 4

I think you have it wrong. Republicans are not about taking something away. They are not seeking to remove your freedom or your liberty. What the AG was explaining is that the constitution does not mention an HB. It is not written into the consitution, it is a rule of law that was established by and honored by judges for at least a couple of hundred years. A writ of Habeas corpus can be presented to a court if one is being held without charge. The good thing about what the AG said is that if the committee is shocked by it then maybe there will be new legislation that will establish it. I wonder if the democrats will author such a law? five will get you ten, they won't.. where was their outrage when they heard the statement?

Answer 5

Yeah, but we know his boss, so why are you surprised?

There is habeas corpus because the Supreme Court says so and I'll take the Supreme Court over Gonzalez, any day.

"The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9 which states:

“ 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. "

He says that isn't saying habeas corpus exists? 'shall not be suspended' clearly means it exists unless suspended. Heck, we have rights of privacy from 'penumbras' of the constitution which are a lot more vague than this.

"Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant". The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge."

wikipedia

OK, now I'm pissed off again. The Constitution is more than a 'Goddamn piece of paper' whatever Bush thinks about it.

And I AM a Republican. At the moment.

Answer 6

I quote Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution:

the privelige of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Since we are not in a civil war nor have we been invaded, Gonzalez & Bush are both dead wrong about their suspension of habeas corpus.. Thus far, in 2004 & 2006, the Supreme Court over ruled suspension of Habeas Corpus, & will no doubt have to decide again since Congress changed the law, narrowing the scope of those who would be affected.

In other words, Gonzalez is outright lying, or else too ignorant to be Attorney General.

Answer 7

Gonzales said; “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away.”

The US Constitution says: "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."

Gonzales was merely stating a fact. He didn't say that HC doesn't exist, he said that there is a prohibition against taking it away.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 limit the use of the federal writ by imposing a one-year statute of limitations and dramatically increasing the federal judiciary's deference to decisions previously made in state court proceedings either on appeal or in a state court habeas corpus action.

The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain citizens and non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an enemy combatant. As such, that person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights.
On September 29, 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States,” by a vote of 65-34. An amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51 so I guess it isn't just Republicans that support the MCA.
President Bush signed the Military Commissons Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.
The MCA states, with regard to HC:
“Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.

Answer 8

Article I
Section 9
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.


If the constitution says that it shall not be suspended, that means that the people are protected by it. What bunch of idiots gave him the okay to be the AG?

Answer 9

Well, if the Writ cannot be suspended except in those two cases, that presupposes that it exists in all other cases. It says the writ shall not be suspended. The AG is trying to weasel around and say that means that if there is no right, then their is nothing to suspend. Which is very specious logic. Why would the framers say it couldn't be suspended if the right didn't exist in the first place?

Answer 10

"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."
-US Constitution Article 1, Section 9.

According to my interpretation, we DO have habeas corpus EXCEPT in cases of invasion or revolution. Maybe he should also read Amendment V and Amendment VI.