![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
habeas corpus
Alberto Gonzales recently made a statement on the right of habeas corpus. I quote from the generally circulating news item regarding this.
“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.
Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.
“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”
Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that.”
Here is why you should be outraged about this. Those who support a government with strong legal enforcement powers will say that these laws protect terrorists and prevent the government from doing it's job, keeping us safe. This is the party line of the law and order political bloc and in some cases, it may be true, certain laws do make it harder to fight terrorists, which is a debate for another time.
The thing is, habeas corpus is not one of those times. What habeas corpus demands is that a prisoner be produced before a judge and the government make the case of why they should be imprisoned. The government does not have to prosecute him at this point(though they must proceed in a speedy fashion, according to the bill of rights) but they must at this point have some sort of proof. If they don't they are unlawfully imprisoning you and must release you.
Let me give you an example of why ignoring this is a bad idea. Let's say your name is John Smith. A man named John Smith blows up a school. The government arrests you because you share a name with the bomber. So, you're in prison for something you didn't do, it's easy for you to prove you are not the John Smith that blew up the school, but you have no chance to do so, because you are never given an opportunity to prove it.
On the other hand, the government nabs the John Smith who blew up the school. They are forced to bring him before the judge, who looks at the evidence that they have(which should be what led them to arrest this man) and the judge says, yes, this is a legitimate suspect in this case, you can hold him, arraign him and so forth, because that's your job.
It's possible to quibble with lots of legal protections, but habeas corpus is the absolute basis of a free society. Without it, we are a totalitarian regime. Everyone should be outraged at Gonzales' attempt to ignore this basic right.
“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.
Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.
“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”
Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that.”
Here is why you should be outraged about this. Those who support a government with strong legal enforcement powers will say that these laws protect terrorists and prevent the government from doing it's job, keeping us safe. This is the party line of the law and order political bloc and in some cases, it may be true, certain laws do make it harder to fight terrorists, which is a debate for another time.
The thing is, habeas corpus is not one of those times. What habeas corpus demands is that a prisoner be produced before a judge and the government make the case of why they should be imprisoned. The government does not have to prosecute him at this point(though they must proceed in a speedy fashion, according to the bill of rights) but they must at this point have some sort of proof. If they don't they are unlawfully imprisoning you and must release you.
Let me give you an example of why ignoring this is a bad idea. Let's say your name is John Smith. A man named John Smith blows up a school. The government arrests you because you share a name with the bomber. So, you're in prison for something you didn't do, it's easy for you to prove you are not the John Smith that blew up the school, but you have no chance to do so, because you are never given an opportunity to prove it.
On the other hand, the government nabs the John Smith who blew up the school. They are forced to bring him before the judge, who looks at the evidence that they have(which should be what led them to arrest this man) and the judge says, yes, this is a legitimate suspect in this case, you can hold him, arraign him and so forth, because that's your job.
It's possible to quibble with lots of legal protections, but habeas corpus is the absolute basis of a free society. Without it, we are a totalitarian regime. Everyone should be outraged at Gonzales' attempt to ignore this basic right.
no subject
As I've said, the War on Terror is Bush double-speak for the expansion of executive power (and erosion of right to privacy).
no subject
no subject
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/
no subject
no subject
As a result, since she shared a name with Cat Stevens (the folk(?) singer who converted to mainstream Islam), she was on the no-fly list for a while.
Also, freaking Cat Stevens is on the no-fly list. WTF?
This has been coming for awhile...
No one has ever accused Gonzalez of having the vaguest understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the Constitution says the right cannot be taken away by the government, is it not implied one has the right? Is this kind of logic beyond Mr. Gonzalez's depth?