Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testifying before a House Judiciary Committee hearing, said that he “hadn’t really thought about” habeas corpus. This being the same attorney general who told a Senate Judiciary Committee in January that there’s no express right to habeas corpus in the constitution. (Ahem.) New rule: In order to be attorney general, you must have actually read the constitution, at least once.
Comments are closed.
I thought some law Congress passed gave the president the authority to detain foreign (non-US citizens) enemy combatants without charge or access to courts but that he couldn’t treat US citizens that way. Anyone know if that’s right?
In any event, I think it’s fair to say Gonzales oughtta have a little bit better handle on things.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10/17/06) exempts detainees prior to that date from the provisions you are referring to. This was the “Jose Padilla Clause”. It was designed to prevent the public trial of detainees who had been tortured.
More specifically the SCOTUS has refused to hear Padilla’s case that the President not have the authority to declare any Tom, Dick, or Harry an “enemy combatant”, thus ensuring that an American citizen can be held without trial and sans Habeas Corpus.
If George Bush says you are an Enemy Combatant…you can be detained indefinitely, and your citizenship is no protection.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is quite familiar with the issues surrounding habeas corpus. Our leaders have a problem with the Constitution; it gets in the way of them doing exactly what they want to do. Too many of them are unwilling to accept that hindrance, and so they try to pretend the Constitution does not exist and hope no one will notice.
Our leaders are ambitious, and they would exempt themselves from the rules, and that includes people from both political parties. Power corrupts; the desire to have things our own way can corrupt any of us. That is why leaders from both political parties and special interests of any stripe must constantly be checked from imposing their own will in violation of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, these days too many are too indifferent to take action. Many naively expect someone else to worry about the problem. That is why we have an Attorney General indifferent to habeas corpus, Congress trying to grant DC a congresswoman without making the district a state, and the farcical idea that we need hate-crime (i.e., thought crime) legislation to protect people’s rights. Perhaps pretending the Constitution does not exist and hoping no one will notice is not as dumb as it sounds.